Preamble

The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

The Minister was asked—

Madam Speaker: I call Question 1.

Mr. Ben Chapman: rose—

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will answer Question 1 at 12.30 pm.

Pesticides

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: What reviews he is undertaking of the use of pesticides in agriculture. [67797]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The pesticides safety directorate is reviewing the use of 49 pesticide active substances as part of the national review programme of older pesticides. In addition, the directorate is playing its full part in the European review programme, which is examining 83 active substances. Furthermore, several hundred pesticide uses, which have been on provisional approval only for three years, are being considered at my request.

Mr. Shaw: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. What is his Department doing to ensure the provision of information and data about older pesticides? What is he doing about organophosphate pesticides, in the light of growing public concern? What reviews will the pesticides safety directorate conduct in future?

Mr. Rooker: In response to public concern, a major national review of organophosphate pesticides, and compounds with similar actions, is in progress. Human safety is our key concern, and it will not be compromised. In addition, the Committee on the Toxicity of Chemicals in Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, and other Government advisory committees, are considering the scientific evidence on the possible impact of long-term, low-level exposure to organophosphates. We should have the interim report in the spring, and, by the summer, a report that draws some conclusions.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Just as the Minister of State's comments on the centrality of the importance of safety are very welcome, so, too, were his comments in response to an Adjournment debate on a pesticides tax, which I initiated a fortnight ago. Is not one of the most important arguments against such a tax, on which we encourage him to be robust, that it may inhibit innovation and the retirement of older, less acceptable chemicals in favour of more modern equivalents?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct. The idea of a pesticides tax, which is being examined, is seductive, although there are possible down sides, such as greater damage to the environment, the use of older pesticides, which have not been regulated sufficiently, and other misuse. Both my right hon. Friend and I will therefore be making the position quite clear when the appropriate time arises.

Ms Jean Corston: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the consequences of recent health scares is that people no longer have an unquestioning faith in science? Does he also agree that one of the explanations for the huge increase in demand for organic food over recent years is growing concern about the long-term health and genetic consequences of ingesting pesticides?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is perfectly right, but let us not exaggerate. Although the Government are doubling aid to organic farmers—we want more to convert—and doubling research effort on organic production, we also check tens of thousands of samples of food every year for pesticide residue, under the control of the pesticides working party. We publish those results. Indeed, in the next tranche of publications, pesticide residues will be published by brand name. The Government's overall policy is aimed at a reduction in the use and volume of pesticides.

Mr. Paul Tyler: I thank the Minister not only for his reassuring words about organophosphates, but for meeting my all-party group, along with ministerial colleagues from other Departments, to discuss the review's progress. Will he look at the issue of warnings to users of pesticides, especially OPs? I am sure that he is aware that, in the 1980s, it was well known that they were extremely dangerous to handle in certain circumstances, yet the trade association, which goes by the extraordinary name of NOAH—the National Office of Animal Health—seems to have been resistant to the provision of any advice on labels. Will he particularly consider the damage to human health as a result of the lack of proper information?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman touches on a serious and important point. We are not completely free agents on the matter, simply because the medicines to which he referred particularly come under the Control of Medicines Act 1968. Confidentiality is therefore greater than under other legislation. Since the matter was first raised with me, I have looked at it. The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that there were objections and an appeal some years ago about the nature of warnings on labels to users of pesticides and veterinary medicines, to which he referred, especially concerning people who shear sheep. The Department is actively considering the matter.

Competitiveness

Dr. Ian Gibson: What discussions took place with the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure food production contributed to the DTI's policy document, "Building the Knowledge Driven Economy—Our Competitive Future". [67798]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): MAFF was consulted by DTI at various stages of the preparation of this White Paper.

Dr. Gibson: In my hon. Friend's discussions with the DTI on the setting up of the Foods Standards Agency, were there ever any disagreements between those who believe in wealth creation, entrepreneurship and innovation, and others who consider food safety and sound scientific advice more important?

Mr. Morley: I can assure my hon. Friend that, in the discussions, there was no disagreement about the need to develop a world-class business and a world-class reputation, and the need for the highest safety standards and quality controls. We have taken those initiatives forward by supporting initiatives from the grocery group to co-ordinate the development of food through all Government Departments and the food chain. One of those initiatives is based on best practice, which includes safety and quality.

Mr. Michael Jack: In the discussions that the Minister has just reported to the House, did he tell the Department of Trade and Industry that clause 23 of the proposed Food Standards Agency Bill would contain powers to enable his Ministry, if he were so minded, to levy charges on the entire food industry to cover all the costs of the agency, all the costs of food enforcement and other associated costs? Does he believe that those powers are necessary to secure a competitive food industry?

Mr. Morley: That was a collective decision. There will be consultations on the proposals for the Food Standards Agency, and all interested parties will be able to express their views on that and other issues.

Humanely Reared Meat

Mr. Chris Mullin: What discussions he has had with food retailers regarding the sale of humanely reared meat; and if he will make a statement. [67799]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): I regularly meet food retailers and ensure that they are aware of the high welfare standards of UK livestock production.

Mr. Mullin: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the major retailers are doing enough to promote humanely reared meat? Is he satisfied that they are not merely seeking to exploit the widespread desire for humanely reared meat by charging premium prices? Might retailers and the Government do more to promote humanely reared

meat by mounting an aggressive advertising campaign designed to demonstrate to a wider audience the extreme cruelties of factory farming?

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a very strong point. I regularly meet the British Retail Consortium and others representing major and other retailers in the UK to discuss animal welfare. In animal welfare issues, I want to enlist the aid of the consumer. For consumers to help, they need a clear labelling scheme so that they can purchase animal welfare-friendly products. I am keen on promoting measures to ensure that.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Minister agree that the standards of animal husbandry and welfare in the United Kingdom are exceptionally high? Although the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) is on to a good point, does the Minister agree that the production of humanely reared meat, rather than extensively farmed meat, is a good selling point and will assist the export of meat from the UK? Will he assure the House that, when we are again able to enter export markets—when that happy day comes—that point will be strongly emphasised?

Mr. Brown: When we get British meat back on to international markets, our strongest selling point will be that British beef is among the safest in the world, and that it is reared to high animal welfare standards. I want to enlist the help of consumers in ensuring that we can get an animal welfare premium in the marketplace for the high livestock rearing standards that we have in this country. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support for those objectives.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: While my right hon. Friend is in discussions with the retailers, will he discuss the plight of retailers in Chorley with regard to the proposed fees for small shopkeepers? Will he try to ensure that no tax is levied on small shopkeepers with premises of less than 10,000 sq ft and those belonging to chains of fewer than five shops?

Mr. Brown: The Government are consulting on the funding measures for the extra costs involved in the setting up of the Foods Standards Agency. The proposal, as the House knows, is for a flat rate levy of £90 a year. That is a charge of £1.73 per week. [Interruption.] I hear an hon. Member shout that that would be too much. I ask him what sum he thinks would be affordable.

Mr. James Paice: The Minister has gained a well-deserved reputation for listening to farmers. When will he do something concrete to help our meat producers? He has already taken away more money than he gave them in December. Why does he not use article 36 of the treaty, which allows him to preclude or restrict imports, on the grounds of the protection of health and life of humans and animals—ample opportunity for him to ensure that our standards of welfare, which he has already praised, are met by our imports, as well as by our own production?

Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we do, of course, make use of article 36 where there are grounds for doing so, but I cannot just use it gratuitously as a


protectionist measure, as the hon. Gentleman implies. The second point to his question is factually inaccurate. The aid package that I announced before Christmas did a substantial amount to help livestock producers, who I freely acknowledge are going through difficult times. The sums of money involved in the agrimonetary compensation under the hill livestock compensatory allowances are well in excess of the new charges, to which I think the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Genetically Modified Foods

Judy Mallaber: What measures he is taking to ensure that consumers have adequate information on genetically modified foods. [67800]

Ms Joan Walley: When he plans to meet the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes to discuss genetically modified food. [67801]

Mr. Andrew Miller: What discussions he has had with the food industry in relation to genetically modified foods. [67803]

Mr. Alan Simpson: What discussions he has had about compulsory insurance schemes to cover genetically modified products. [67805]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I am aware from on-going meetings with the food industry, and having met the ACNFP, that all GM foods marketed in the United Kingdom receive a thorough safety assessment and are required to be clearly labelled in accordance with EC legislation. I have not had any discussions about compulsory insurance schemes to cover GM products.

Judy Mallaber: I congratulate the Minister on tackling the labelling issue, but does he agree that that must be combined with ensuring that consumers have access to GM-free foods? Will he commit himself to ensuring the greatest possible openness on this and other food policy issues? Does he share the concern that I felt, when I visited the BSE inquiry with a constituent of mine whose son died of CJD, that the successive tragedies relating to the food industry must have some connection with the culture of secrecy that I saw displayed in that inquiry, which we saw with the previous Government?

Mr. Rooker: To take my hon. Friend's final point first, the culture, in terms of transparency and openness as opposed to secrecy, changed in May 1997. In the brief time that I had to reply to yesterday's debate, I gave examples of what we have done in that regard, including putting non-scientific lay members on all the advisory committees, publishing the minutes and the agendas of all the scientific committees, being open about labelling, and publishing the brand names of our chemical surveillance, veterinary medicine and pesticides residues programmes. The culture has changed dramatically. We will pursue with the EU the gaps in the labelling provision for GM foods relating to additives and flavourings, which I mentioned yesterday.

Ms Walley: My hon. Friend is doing a brilliant job and has the confidence of Labour Members in the work that

he is doing. In relation to the ACNFP, is he aware that one particular batch of yellow Apache tortilla chips has been withdrawn because of suspected GM contamination? Does he intend, as part of future assessments, that the ACNFP will test for cross-pollination as part of its assessment for the authorisation of novel foods?

Mr. Rooker: Cross-pollination is a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' regulatory process under the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment. No crop is grown in Britain, whether genetically modified or otherwise, unless it has been approved by another Government Department, not this Ministry, and it is important that that separation continues.
I am not aware of the individual case to which my hon. Friend refers. Only four products have been approved in Britain and have gone through the regulatory process governed by the ACNFP, and they are the genetically modified tomato paste, the vegetarian cheese and the soya and maize.

Mr. Miller: Did my hon. Friend notice the contradiction from Conservative Members yesterday who originally resisted the labelling of GM foods and now seem to be on the offensive? Will my hon. Friend confirm that, in the programme to bring about greater transparency and choice for the consumer, so that the consumer can choose, he will ensure that his Department does not suggest to the consumer that there is risk? As he has just said, consumers have a high level of protection in the programme, and what we need to ensure is that the consumer has choice.

Mr. Rooker: The consumer has choice in two ways, and they are both necessary. This covers a point that I neglected to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley): labelling is crucial, but, unless there is an alternative product, there cannot be any of the choice that is so crucial. On the initiative of the Government and of the Department, and as a result of discussions that we had a year ago, we published a list of 59 suppliers of GM-free maize and soya—they are mainly from the areas in which it is grown, such as Canada and the United States, although there are some suppliers in Holland—so that British food manufacturers and producers know where to go for GM-free supplies.
Obviously we require also, through the European Union, a de minimis level so that there is a percentage under which a product can be properly qualified as non-GM. False allegations are made by some food manufacturers, who claim that they are supplying GM-free food when their own contracts with suppliers allows up to 1 per cent. GM food.

Mr. Simpson: I congratulate the Minister on supporting the introduction of regulations in respect of GM products, which the Tories always blocked or refused to support. Will he consider three possible extensions of that? First, will he consider notifying retailers, whether they are in this place or any other, that they, too, will be included in the chain of product liability, in the way that retailers are in relation to beef on the bone? Will he also consider the possibility of attaching an obligation to have full public insurance indemnification at the point of product licensing?
Finally, will my hon. Friend assure the House that the Government will not enter into any mutual recognition agreement with the United States giving access to United Kingdom markets to GM products that have come through licensing processes less stringent than those that apply in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Rooker: The answer to my hon. Friend's last question is yes. Nothing will be put on sale in this country unless it has gone through the regulatory process that we carry out ourselves, in conjunction with our European Union partners. It simply will not be possible for a third country, such as the United States, to supply foods to member states of the EU—whether this country or any other—unless those foods have been approved by regulatory processes in this country and the EU.
All food retailers are liable for what they sell, under the Food Safety Act 1990. It has got to be safe; the liability is clear, and it is no different for GM foods. As I made clear in the debate yesterday, under common law, the firm holding the marketing consent for the GM crop can be held liable in law for any damages arising from, or ill effects attributed to, that crop. That will be extended in due course, under the product liability to primary agricultural producers under the European Commission Green Paper on food law.

Mr. James Gray: The Minister says that labelling is crucial in respect of GM products. He will remember that the second of the three options offered to him by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee regarding beef on the bone was to label beef on the bone as potentially harmful to human beings. Why has he chosen the most extreme option offered to him by SEAC while simultaneously choosing to ignore the good advice given to him by English Nature, which said that GM foods may be harmful and therefore there should be a moratorium? Why does he believe SEAC while choosing to ignore English Nature?

Mr. Rooker: First, English Nature has not said anything whatever about GM foods being harmful. The answer to the rest of the question can wait until 12.30.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I ask my question in all seriousness, because constituents are writing to me about this issue. In respect of the Minister's Department, the Government have suggested that they want to separate the producers of food from such Departments as the Department of Trade and Industry, which looks after industry retailers. How are the responsibilities of Lord Sainsbury being separated, because he is in charge of the Government's science policy? We rely on scientists to give proper advice to the Government, but he clearly has interests—which he has fully declared—in developing and selling GM foods. In respect of those responsibilities, can the Minister reassure the House that it will be clear to my constituents that the Government are being even-handed?

Mr. Rooker: I hope that I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. My noble Friend has made his position absolutely clear, but he is in no way involved in the regulatory process in decisions relating to novel foods. Clearly, the Government—[Interruption.] No, because the Department—and, in due course, the Food Standards

Agency—is responsible. We can completely separate sponsorship of the industry and producers from consumer interests.
The issues of biodiversity and biotechnology involve more than one Department. Obviously, the Department of Health has an interest, as has the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. We have established a new Cabinet Committee so that joined-up decisions can be made across government. As for food regulations, to which the question specifically relates, my noble Friend is in no way involved in that part of Government activity.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Minister note farmers' concern about the development of genetically modified crops and foods, which they believe is being driven by multinational chemical companies? Will he impose a five-year moratorium to ensure that public safety is not at risk?

Mr. Rooker: The best way in which I can answer that question—I am not playing with words—is by saying that there is a moratorium on a free-for-all in regard to the planting of such crops. That will not happen: farmers and companies will not be free to plant what they like, where they like. I made that clear yesterday, and I do so again now.
Under the guidelines that will be introduced under the final proposals of SCIMAC, the supply chain initiative on modified agricultural crops—when we have them—there will be controlled introduction and management of GM crops. The planting of each crop will depend on where the next is planted; it will not take place in isolation. It will not be possible for hundreds of acres to be planted willy-nilly, with no respect for what is being planted elsewhere—whether it is genetically modified, or an ordinary crop. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman that there will be considerable control over planting.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Does the Minister understand what English Nature said? It said that the large-scale introduction of genetically modified crops into a small and crowded country such as Britain could have serious environmental consequences. In view of that advice, why will he not do as English Nature suggests, and allow the research for which the Government are paying to be completed before he starts authorising the commercial development of GM crops? It would be prudent to allow a short period during which the research could be studied, before deciding how safely the commercial release could take place.

Mr. Rooker: That is exactly what is being done. The hon. Gentleman is right: in this country, we grow our food in the countryside, whereas farmers in the United States grow their food on the prairies. In northern Europe—the rest of the European Union is virtually the same in this regard—we must be particularly vigilant in protecting the environment and biodiversity. That is why we have these controls. The same point was made by both the Minister for the Environment and me when we gave evidence to the Select Committee in the other place.
We have assessed English Nature's views. So far, we have been given no scientific reason why planting should not take place, provided that the final approvals are given.


There is currently no commercial planting of GM crops in this country, and, if it happens, it is unlikely to happen before late autumn this year.

Mr. Tony Colman: I welcome my hon. Friend's assurances. Will he also assure us that the current labelling discussions will include the subject of animal feedstuffs? There are fears that there could be a repetition of the BSE problem, and that farmers will claim that they did not know what was in the feedstuffs. It is important for fanners to be able to reassure the ultimate consumers—ourselves—that what we are eating does not contain GM foods, should they choose to do so. Farmers must be able to choose whether to incorporate GMOs in animal feedstuffs.

Mr. Rooker: That is an important point. Back in 1992, a committee headed by Professor Lamming suggested the establishment of a special independent advisory committee dealing with animal feedstuffs. The previous Government accepted that recommendation, but did nothing about it. Such a committee is now being set up, and we hope to announce the appointment of a chairman before Easter.
If hon. Members refer to columns 691 and 692 of yesterday's Hansard, they will see that, in response to a question from the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), I published in full a background note that I had received concerning genetically modified crops. I am sure that the note will be of interest both to the House and to the companies mentioned in it.

Imported Meat

Mr. Desmond Swayne: If he will make a statement about the powers he has to ban imported meat. [67802]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The rules for intra-Community trade in meat and for imports from third countries are laid down in European Community legislation. Member states have powers to take interim protective measures in cases where a disease or other serious threat to public or animal health exists.

Mr. Swayne: I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) pointed out, under the treaty of Rome, the Minister has the power to ban imports on grounds of animal welfare and public health. Will he use those powers to alleviate the crisis in the pig industry, where producers are being undercut by meat from abroad that is reared in much less suitable circumstances and fed on feeds that would be illegal in this country?

Mr. Brown: I can use the powers under article 36 for the purposes that are set out. We use them, for example, to ban imports of specified risk materials from cattle, sheep and goats, but I cannot use the article as a general protectionist measure, as the hon. Gentleman wants me to do.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: This morning, we have had many questions about GMOs, but some of us think that an even greater threat to public health could

come from artificial growth hormones that are injected into, or fed to, beef cattle. As I understand it, the product is already coming into this country and we are defenceless to stop it. What is the situation? Is it too late to stop that threat to public health?

Mr. Brown: Those matters are under consideration by the Commission. The European Union has a difference of view with the United States.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: What assessment has the Ministry made in view of the unfortunate industrial dispute that is taking place in the Meat Hygiene Service and this week's threat that the one-day stoppages or withdrawals may escalate to two or three days? What action does the Ministry propose to take to deal with the knock-on impact that that escalation could have on domestic demand for meat consumption, and the fact that all it will do is help our competitors to penetrate our market with imports that are all too often of an inferior quality?

Mr. Brown: The Meat Hygiene Service is set up as a next steps agency. I hope that the industrial dispute that is under way is resolved soon. As I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be the first to appreciate, the Government's priority is to ensure that the public are protected.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Why should we not, on principle, simply block the importation of pigmeat if it has been inhumanely produced?

Mr. Brown: Because this country has a huge vested interest in free trade, rather than in specific protectionist measures. I want British farmers to get that welfare premium in the marketplace, but, to achieve that, we must have clear labelling, the support of the British retail consortiums and other retailers and, above all, the support of United Kingdom consumers. We must encourage them to consume from welfare-friendly production systems, which will be a great support to the UK industry and, indeed, a great advance for animal welfare.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Yes, the farmers are looking for a level playing field, but, to be able to export, farmers have to survive the winter. Does the Minister accept that many sheep farmers are finding it extremely difficult because the grass has stopped growing and they have no money with which to buy feed for their animals? Can he accelerate the hill livestock compensatory allowance package and the ewe premium package that he announced last November to bring the cash forward more quickly?

Mr. Brown: It is my intention that the enhanced HLCA payments that I announced last November are paid before the end of this financial year. I know that that will give some support for the hard-pressed sheep industry. The mechanism that I used—enhancing the HLCAs—was the only one that was open to me to give extra support to the sheep industry. The Government recognised the difficulties and responded with that one-off aid package.

Common Fisheries Policy

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What meetings he has had recently with the representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry to discuss reform of the common fisheries policy. [67804]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I regularly meet members of the United Kingdom fishing industry when we discuss possible changes to the common fisheries policy.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Representatives of the United Kingdom fishing industry will have studied the fisheries debate that took place in the Chamber shortly before Christmas. Can my hon. Friend say what the industry's reaction was to the Tory party policy of declaring national territorial waters and fighting some sort of fish war, rather like the previous beef war? Do the fishermen think that that is a realistic and sensible policy? What is my hon. Friend's assessment of that approach to the common fisheries policy?

Madam Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with the Minister. The hon. Gentleman is asking about the Opposition's policy. It is not a relevant question for the Minister and I shall move on.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: In the context of the negotiations about the common fisheries policy, can the Minister say what emphasis has been placed on the possibility of zonal management committees or councils, which would not go against the concept of the Hague preference, but would take account of the fragile nature of many of our coastal communities and the nature of the stocks in those areas?

Mr. Morley: That is a good point. We have been discussing ways of achieving a greater regional dimension within the common fisheries policy and a zonal approach is part of that. I am interested in those ideas, which are also formulated in a paper from the Scottish Fishermen's Federation and the National Federation of Fishermen's Organisations. That approach to reforming the CFP and making it better and more practical is far better than any unrealistic policy of reneging on treaty obligations. That is not seen as a credible option by the fishermen and, when espoused by the Conservative party, it is not seen as a credible option by many of its members.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: There is a sustained discussion going on about the need to reform the common agricultural policy before European Union enlargement. What about reform of the common fisheries policy, which is just as important to our fishing communities as is reform of the CAP to our farming communities? When will we see a ban on industrial fishing? What guarantees can my hon. Friend give to our fishing communities that, with enlargement, our fishermen and their communities will be protected against the possible incursion of large fleets that are owned and operated by some of the applicant nations? Let us have a statement on that.

Mr. Morley: I recognise my hon. Friend's point about industrial fishing. At the next Fisheries Council, the United Kingdom will be advocating new proposals for seasonal closed areas from the Orkneys down to the Humber, which we hope will recognise the concerns about the impact of such fishing, based on the precautionary principle.
My hon. Friend is right to say that enlargement issues concern our fishing industry and our national interest. It is because of that that the principle of relative stability, which guarantees our quota share and that of other member states, is an important principle that we intend to protect within the negotiations on the CFP post-2002. That will protect our fleet from the effects of enlargement and the potential entry of large Polish fleets, for example.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Is it not true that the Minister is nothing if not brazen? After all, before the election the Minister said that he was prepared to go to Amsterdam and say that there would be no progress on treaty negotiation unless quota hopping was dealt with. When he arrived, he threw in the towel the moment his plane touched down. Is the Minister seriously suggesting that our partners in Europe will willingly agree to our regaining control of our waters, which is what the fishing industry wants? Will he back us when we say that we should be as resolute in making and securing those demands as the noble Baroness Thatcher when she secured our original budget contribution? In a word, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to say on behalf of the British fishing industry that he is not prepared to take no for an answer?

Mr. Morley: First, may I correct the hon. Gentleman? Before the election, we said that we did not rule out any approach to deal with issues such as quota hoppers, for example. That was the line we followed. The previous Government had no support for any of the changes that they proposed. Now, after 18 years of supporting the common fisheries policy, during which time they could not resolve quota hopping, agreed to Spanish access to western waters, could not resolve fishing issues or take forward uniform enforcement across the European Union, they seem to be saying that, in some way, they could negotiate a withdrawal from the CFP and tear up treaties agreed by their Administration. It is not credible to do that. Neither is it credible to use the fishing industry as part of the agenda for a eurosceptic attack on the European Union.

Beef Cattle (Traceability Scheme)

Mr. Michael Connarty: What progress has been made in establishing a traceability scheme for beef cattle. [67806]

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The cattle tracing system, CTS, became operational on 28 September 1998, and records the births, movements and deaths of all animals registered on the system since that date. It also records details of cattle born since passports were introduced, in 1996. Eventually, it will record the death of those animals, although—as the old system was not working in the same as the new one does—it will not record their movements.

Mr. Connarty: I thank the Minister for that reply. He will know that SQBALR—it sounds like


squabbler—is not a board game based on the behaviour of parliamentarians but stands for the Scottish quality beef and lamb regime. Is he aware that the regime's representatives have told me that, as they go round Europe's trade fairs and food fairs, they are asked when people in Europe will also be able to eat Scottish beef? Can he imagine the crisis of conscience for people like me, who will go home this weekend and eat a succulent Scotch sirloin steak or a luscious piece of Scotch lamb, while realising that Europe's restaurateurs and bon viveurs are denied that pleasure? When will the traceability scheme allow us to sell Scottish beef and lamb to Europeans?

Mr. Rooker: So far, the new system has issued over 800,000 passports, at a rate of about 50,000 to 60,000 passports a week. I am not sure how many of the passports are being issued to SQBALRs, which will be quite young now, having been born and raised since last December. My hon. Friend asks how soon British beef will be exported. It will be exported as quickly as we can possibly receive approval of the practicalities of the date-based export scheme. We are doing all that we possibly can to prepare for the European Commission inspection—which we expect to be held in March, and certainly by early April. It will, of course, be up to the industry to regain its own markets, but recording cattle under the date-based scheme will not be the cause of any delay.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Is the Minister aware of the growing concern in the beef industry about the apparently ever-receding date on which British beef exports are likely to resume? Will he tell the House how many abattoirs have come forward to offer themselves as dedicated abattoirs for British beef exports? Will he tell the House when he expects to be able to invite the European Commission to send its inspectors to the United Kingdom to examine the facilities through which British beef exports will start?

Mr. Rooker: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question, the number of abattoirs is less than the fingers on one hand. [Interruption.] I said less than the fingers on one hand.

Mr. James Paice: Does that mean zero?

Mr. Rooker: No, not zero. It is a small number—a very small number. They have offered themselves so that the European Commission can inspect the date-based scheme, on which we are consulting. As I said, as soon as we have the scheme in place, we shall invite the Commission to make its inspections. No date has ever been given on which beef off the bone—what the matter amounts to—will be exported. To deal with the thrust of the question from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), establishing the cattle tracing system will not be the cause of any delay. We are preparing, as quickly as possible, to invite the European Commission to inspect the abattoirs and the system's ability to trace cattle. As I said, we expect to do that in March or April. When beef leaves the United Kingdom will then be a matter for the industry and the markets.

Pig Industry

Mr. David Heath: If he will make a statement on the current profitability of the pig industry. [67807]

Mr. Nigel Evans: What action he plans to take to assist the pig industry. [67808]

Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received about illegal pig subsidies to French and German producers; and if he will make a statement. [67809]

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I very much share the House's concern about the current problems facing the pig industry, and shall work constructively with our European Union partners to see what can be done. The Government will, however, continue to oppose the introduction of market-distorting state aids.

Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Pig producers want only fair competition with our European competitors. What discussions has the hon. Gentleman had with our European competitors on the early introduction of their proposals on tether bans? Has he had any discussions on implementation of the directive before 2006? Will he also tell us why grants for conversion were available to Northern Ireland pig producers, whereas such grants were not available to any other producers in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Morley: The Government have consistently argued that although tethers are to be phased out in the European Union, there is no date to phase out sow stalls. I am pleased to report to the House that the European Science and Veterinary Committee has recently published a report that backs our argument that there are strong welfare grounds for phasing out tethers across the European Union. That will be one of our priorities in the negotiations.

Mr. Evans: The Minister has spoken about his belief in free trade, but what about his belief in fair trade? We have imposed certain obligations on our pig farmers, but some imported pigmeat does not meet those high standards. We do not want special treatment for pig farmers, we want equal treatment. When will he bring that about?

Mr. Morley: Equal treatment is a serious issue, but the phasing out of sow stalls was agreed eight years ago. The industry has had eight years to prepare for it. There are costs associated with meat and bone meal controls that result from our problem with BSE, for which the previous Administration must take responsibility. We should not apologise for the United Kingdom's high welfare and quality standards in the pig sector. We are doing all that we can to ensure that they are a marketing advantage for retailers and caterers, as they should be, and that our pig industry benefits.

Miss McIntosh: Has the Minister received any specific representations about illegal pig subsidies in France and


Germany? Does he agree with me and with the National Farmers Union that the present procedure of applying to the European Court of Justice is too slow? Will he propose a procedure for an immediate ban on subsidies which the Commission rules illegal or unfair and press for an interim interdict or injunction to stop the damage to the British pig farming industry?

Mr. Morley: I can certainly assure the hon. Lady that we shall take immediate action by complaining to the Commission. We have done that over the proposed German and French state aid. The German proposals have been withdrawn and the French proposals have been stopped by the Commission.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY—GENERAL

The Attorney—General was asked—

Pro Bono Work

Mr. Ben Chapman: What encouragement he is giving to Government lawyers to do pro bono work. [67827]

The Solicitor-General (Mr. Ross Cranston): My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General and I are very supportive of pro bono work. My right hon. and learned Friend is a member of the advisory board of the Bar's pro bono unit and we have both attended functions to foster the work of the solicitors pro bono group. We are also keen to encourage Government lawyers who wish to participate in pro bono work, such as assisting at legal advice centres or citizens advice bureaux. Those in charge of the Government legal service have looked at the issue at the request of my right hon. and learned Friend and have concluded that it is possible to encourage Government lawyers to participate in pro bono work.

Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that the attitude of those who commit themselves to pro bono work is the same as that of the Government in the promotion of a community legal service? What specific measures are being taken to put that important service in place and what is the timetable?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend knows that the Access to Justice Bill is currently in the other place. We are hoping that it will be speedily dealt with there and then come here. He is right to say that the same principles underlie that Bill and our encouragement of pro bono work. We do not regard the encouragement of pro bono work as a substitute for the public provision of legal services. It is additional to the public support for access to justice that the Bill will provide.

Sentencing

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On how many occasions he has sought leave to appeal against over-lenient sentences since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [67828]

The Attorney-General (Mr. John Morris): Since 1 May 1997, leave has been sought in respect of 148

offenders. Of those, 97 applications have been heard, leave was granted in 93 cases and the sentence was increased in 80, which is 82.5 per cent. of the references that have been heard.

Mr. Mackinlay: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that information. I realise that the Labour manifesto cannot be implemented in its entirety at a stroke, but when will he be able to fulfil Labour's commitment to extend the powers of the Attorney-General to refer unduly lenient sentences to the Court of Appeal? Will he confirm that it can be done by order, without primary legislation, particularly against the backdrop of increasing numbers of victims of crime demanding greater justice in relation to dangerous driving, which I understand cannot yet be referred under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988?

The Attorney-General: I am well aware of the manifesto commitment to extend unduly lenient sentences. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I are actively considering how best to take that forward. I also confirm that a sentence can be extended by order. It is only when one seeks to restructure the original scheme that one requires primary legislation. I share my hon. Friend's concern, which is manifest in all parts of the House, about sentences for causing death by dangerous driving. My hon. Friend is not right, however, as sentences can be extended.

Mr. Mackinlay: However, sentences relating to dangerous driving cannot be referred, so I was right.

The Attorney-General: Yes. Causing death by dangerous driving is within the scheduled list. The matter undoubtedly causes concern and over the years a large number of cases involving dangerous driving causing death have been referred.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Kerry Pollard: What initiatives are being taken forward in order to improve co-operation between the CPS and the police. [67829]

The Attorney—General: I welcome my hon. Friend's recent visit to the Hertfordshire branch of the CPS. At a local level, police and the CPS are using joint performance management techniques to improve the timeliness and the quality of police files and CPS review decisions. At pilot sites, the police and the CPS are working closely together testing the recommendations in the Narey report on reducing delay in the criminal justice system. At a national level, a working group jointly chaired by the CPS and the Association of Chief Police Officers is considering the Glidewell recommendations on the establishment of joint police-CPS criminal justice units.

Mr. Pollard: I am pleased that the Attorney-General mentioned the Glidewell proposals for joint police-CPS criminal justice units. Does he agree that they will make an important contribution to co-operation between the police and the CPS? Better co-operation means that less


goes wrong and that, should there be a problem, the police and the CPS do not blame each other. What progress has been made on those matters?

The Attorney-General: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that one side blaming the other without foundation is wrong and impedes progress. However, I am sure that the House will agree that my hon. Friend is entirely right to emphasise the importance of co-operation between the police and the CPS. The need for such co-operation has underpinned the Government's approach from the outset, and in particular the decision to restructure the CPS into 42 areas. As for criminal justice units, the issue is being pursued by a working group jointly chaired by the CPS and ACPO. It has yet to report, but I am pleased to tell the House that the work has been taken forward in a positive and constructive manner and I am optimistic that we shall be able to build on the Glidewell proposals in a manner that is practical and consistent with the different contributions that the police and the CPS make to the overall process.

Mr. John Burnett: The question by the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) highlights the link between the CPS and the police, but I believe that it misses the crucial point. The Access to Justice Bill greatly extends the rights of audience of CPS lawyers. As a result, they will take some of the most important cases and come under immense pressure. What measures are the Government taking, other than those in the Bill—particularly in clause 36—to ensure the independence of the CPS not just from the police but from many other Executive agencies?

The Attorney-General: I am glad to assure the hon. Gentleman about the independence of the CPS, which I value as much as he does. That independence exists by statute, and there was nothing in the Glidewell proposals to undermine that. I do not believe that our proposals in the Access to Justice Bill will undermine them in any way. Indeed, there has never been any suggestion in the summary courts that prosecutors are tainted by any lack of independence.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the Narey pilot in Croydon? All cases go to court within three days, and on 75 per cent. of occasions people who plead guilty are dealt with in one day. Across the board, the average case takes only two months, where previously it took many, and indictable cases go straight to Crown court. Now that the police and the CPS work together instead of blaming each other, the system is much better and people know that.

The Attorney—General: I am glad to hear my hon. Friend's detailed report of his investigations into what happens in Croydon. Five similar pilot schemes are under way—in Tyneside, Blackburn and Burnley, Northamptonshire, north Staffordshire and north Wales. The independent consultancy firm Ernst and Young is well known to the House and it has been commissioned to evaluate the results, and will make its final report in July. That report will cover all the initiatives that have been taken, with the exception of indictable-only provisions. Conclusions will be reached only when that report is received, but early indications confirm what my

hon. Friend has discovered—that the initiatives have improved co-operation between the CPS and the police. We shall carry on the good work.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I agree that, if the work is good, it should be carried on. However, there are some signs that police co-operation—even at ACPO level—with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS, is not as constructive and forward-looking as the Attorney-General's answer implied.
The problem is very important, given that the number of civilians employed by the police is greater than the total staff of the CPS. At present, only 50 per cent. of the cases that come forward from the police are either timely or accurate. Will the Attorney-General assure the House that the civilians in the crime support units and the CPS, with the assistance of chief constables, are really preparing to get together, so that there will be an improvement in the coming months?

The Attorney—General: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right to say that there is a need for further improvement. That is what the initiative is all about. Although different constituencies are involved—the CPS and the police—we hope that they will unite as part of the criminal justice system. Hence, to ensure joint ownership of further initiatives to that end, the pilot schemes have been chaired jointly by the police and the CPS. I assure the House that the early indications suggest that we can make progress towards a unified approach.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman is also right to say that some files are not up to standard and are not being delivered on a timely basis. I know that, when he was Attorney-General, he sought to make an improvement in that. We intend to continue that very important work to ensure that criminals are brought to justice more speedily, because the public want to be satisfied that public money is spent properly.

Prosecutions (Juveniles)

Mr. Ian Bruce: If he will make a statement on progress on the Government's fast-track prosecution of juveniles. [67831]

The Solicitor-General: The Government are committed to reduce by half—from 142 days to 71—the average time taken to deal with persistent young offenders. More than 150 youth court areas have fast-tracking schemes in operation, covering almost half the courts in England and Wales. Before May 1997, only eight youth court areas were covered. Tough performance targets have been set for all stages of criminal proceedings, apart from trial. Measures in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, including statutory time limits, should help to ensure that the targets are met.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for that reply, but he has not answered my question. We want a progress report on whether the time taken for juveniles to be prosecuted is being reduced. The Home Secretary, when in opposition, touched a nerve, and received an enthusiastic welcome, when he said that he would reduce the time it took for young offenders to be prosecuted. It is important to do so, because we all know that they go out committing other offences during the delays in their


prosecutions. The hon. and learned Gentleman would win our support if he got on with doing something. When will we see some real results?

The Solicitor-General: I am pleased to have the hon. Gentleman's support. When we came into office, we inherited an appalling mess. It took four and a half months before persistent young offenders were dealt with. In some areas, good progress has been made. In north Hampshire, for example, the time taken is down to 61 days from four and half months, but I do not pretend that the targets will all be achieved overnight.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's interest, and I hope that he will visit the CPS and other parts of the court system in his area, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has in his. North Dorset has adopted performance targets; the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) should encourage those who work in the system.

Mr. David Lock: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that we will make progress only by setting tough performance targets? The House would wish to know precisely what targets are being set for youth courts so that hon. Members can judge precisely what those who operate the system on the ground are expected to do, and so that the public may have confidence that persistent young offenders will be brought quickly before the courts, and disposed of rather than having their cases endlessly adjourned.

The Solicitor—General: I thank my hon. Friend for his interest. Late last year, non-statutory performance targets were adopted. For youth courts those targets are: from arrest to charge—two days; charge to first appearance—seven days; first appearance to start of trial—28 days; verdict to sentence—14 days. As I said earlier, we are trying to reduce the overall average to 71 days from the four and a half month one that we inherited. We are making good progress.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Madam Speaker: We return now to Question 1.

The Minister was asked—

Beef on the Bone

Mr. Ben Chapman: What plans he has to lift the ban on beef on the bone following the report from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee; and if he will make a statement. [67796]

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Nick Brown): The chief medical officer, Professor Liam Donaldson, submitted advice to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on 18 January. His advice follows the latest scientific assessment of the public health risk from beef bones by the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee, which was published on 30 November 1998. SEAC concluded that the risk from infectivity in bone marrow

and dorsal root ganglia is now less than it was 12 months ago. That assessment reflected the continued decline in the number of bovine spongiform encephalopathy cases.
The CMO has concluded that a public health intervention now to lift the Beef Bones Regulations 1997 would allow that element of the food hazard that was originally eliminated—albeit reduced in magnitude—to pose a renewed, though very small, risk. He therefore recommends that, in line with the Government's risk reduction strategy on BSE, the existing controls in the regulations should continue for the time being.
Given the anticipated further decline in the number of BSE-infected cattle during 1999, the chief medical officer has recommended that the controls should be reviewed six months on from 1 February 1999, with particular attention paid to a number of points that he has specified in his advice. He has also asked that, during 1999, a full analysis of the age structure of new cases of BSE be conducted, the success of control measures be audited and new predictions of the incidence of the disease be made. He has also made commitments to continue work on providing estimates of risk in terms that will allow greater public understanding of the level of risk compared with other potential hazards and to ensure that new cases of new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease continue to be carefully monitored.
The Government welcome the CMO's memorandum. We accept all his recommendations. As we have made clear throughout, the beef bones controls were put in place to protect public health from the risk of nvCJD, and will be lifted only in the light of scientific and medical advice. It is encouraging that the CMO sees grounds for hoping that the situation will improve. If we can, consistent with a further assessment of the medical and scientific evidence, we will lift the ban after the review recommended by the CMO in six months.
I acknowledge that the delay in lifting the controls will greatly disappoint many in the food and farming industry and many would-be consumers, but the need to protect public health and retain confidence in beef and beef products remains the Government's paramount concern. My colleagues and I continue to expect that the beef bones regulations will be complied with fully and enforced. Copies of the CMO's memorandum and recommendations are being placed in the Libraries of the House and made widely available, including on the Ministry's internet site.

Mr. Chapman: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that while there is concern among consumers and, of course, beef farmers, the way forward must be to seek the complete eradication of BSE? Where doubt exists, positive and firm action must be taken. Does he agree that had it not been for the inactivity, secrecy and negligence of the previous Government, we would not face this dilemma? Does he further agree that our first priority is the protection of the consumer, in this instance and in the publication of the Food Standards Agency Bill? That is all in stark contrast to the attitude of the Conservative party.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is right. The protection of the public must come first in these matters. He is also right to remind the House of the attitudes that got us into this mess in the first place.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Is the Minister aware that there will be huge disappointment at this


announcement not only among beef farmers who are already struggling but among consumers who continue to be denied the chance to choose their own menus? This is a big setback for an industry that is fighting to regain market confidence. Does he realise that it is also a setback for him personally after all the hints that he has dropped in the past few weeks about lifting the ban? After a six-month struggle to prove that he is different from his unlamented predecessor, he has failed the first real test.
Only this morning, the House was told that the Government are willing to ignore the warnings of English Nature about the environmental risks that may be associated with the hasty large-scale commercial release of genetically modified crops. Why will the Government not publish the CMO's advice and allow consumers to decide for themselves whether to eat beef on the bone? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House the statistical risk of dying from eating beef on the bone and say how it compares with the risks of smoking, an activity where some individual choice is still permitted?

Mr. Brown: The risk is very small, but it is nevertheless there. The chief medical officer's advice is very clear indeed. The hon. Gentleman mentioned consumer choice, but there would be no consumer choice in a restaurant where beef on the bone had been used in the preparation of stew, gravy, or food of that sort. English Nature is not the chief medical officer. It would be wrong to set the science and the medical advice to one side and make a political decision rather than one based on professional advice. Of course I want to lift the ban as soon as I can properly do so, but the chief medical officer has made it absolutely clear to me—in words that brook no misunderstanding whatsoever—that that time is not now.

Mr. Eric Martlew: How many people have died from new variant CJD? Does the Minister agree that it is a deadly disease and that the Government are right to be safe rather than sorry? One of my constituents died from CJD and I had to face the family of that constituent. We must ensure that this Government do not get the same reputation as the previous one, who protected the farmers but forgot to protect the public. I am sorry that the ban cannot be lifted yet, but it is better for the consumer and for the fanner to ensure that beef on the bone is safe before the ban is lifted.

Mr. Brown: Like every other member of the Government, I am determined that we will not get the same reputation as the previous one. I understand that 35 people have now died from the new variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, but I am afraid that it is a statistical certainty that more will follow. We are not yet sure of the profile of the disease, so it is absolutely right to err—if err we do—on the precautionary side.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: Will the Minister concede that he and the agriculture and wider food industries are today the victims of some premature and unfortunate spinning that occurred on his behalf and in his name only last weekend? There is a crisis in morale in British agriculture, which was given something of a fillip by the suggestion that the Minister would be able to make a positive statement today rather than announcing a six-month delay. The down side in terms of morale will thus be all the more acute.
Given that we have always disagreed about the ban on beef on the bone, does not the rather unhappy position in which the Minister finds himself today underscore the lack of wisdom shown by his predecessor in not taking the other option that SEAC offered: to publish the quantifiable risk—which is statistically minute—treat the citizens of this country like adults, and allow them to make their own mature decisions as to the risks? Should the Minister not revisit that option as a matter of urgency?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also address the issue of the over-30-months scheme, as today's statement has another worrying implication? As from this month, there should be nothing in the food chain in this country that represents a quantifiable risk. However, if the chief medical officer is offering this advice—which the Government feel compelled to accept—what implications does that have for the credibility of the OTMS?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman has the last point wrong. The issue is not the over-30-months scheme but maternal transmission and the very small—but still present—risk that that could cause infectivity in the bone element and in the material clinging to the bone. The hon. Gentleman asked about my desire to lift the ban as soon as I can. As soon as it is the responsible thing to do, I will lift the ban on beef on the bone. However, the advice that I have received from the chief medical officer brooks no misunderstanding whatsoever. In advice to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and me, the chief medical officer said:
I recommend, that there should be no reintroduction into the human food chain of that proportion of dorsal root ganglia, as well as bone marrow, eliminated through the Beef Bones Regulations for the time being. To do so would mean that this pool of tissue from the small number of animals incubating BSE at the time of their slaughter could be eaten inadvertently during a meal, in meat trimmed off the bone or hidden in stocks, gravy and other products with a beef bone base and ingested without the person realising it.
The hon. Gentleman and other Opposition Members invite me to reject that advice, but I feel that I cannot do so.

Mr. David Winnick: I respect the eating habits of the large majority of British people, but, as a matter of interest, will my right hon. Friend tell me whether any food that vegetarians eat has ever caused anything like the problem that now confronts him and has confronted previous Ministers?

Mr. Brown: Not so far as I am aware.

Sir Brian Mawhinney: May I invite the Minister to be less coy? My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) asked him to tell us the quantifiable risk, and he answered that that risk was very small—but what is it? Is it one in however many millions, or does the Minister not know?

Mr. Brown: The CMO and SEAC have not quantified the risk in mathematical terms. The phrase they have used is "very small".

Ms Joan Walley: However great the disappointment at the further delay to the lifting of the ban is, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on today's decision. May I refer him to another


recommendation made by SEAC in November in respect of concern about operations in rendering plants? Will he review current legislation so that the practice of spreading liquid condensate on grazing pasture can be prevented and the substance classified, not as a fertiliser, but as a special waste?

Mr. Brown: Local authorities already have powers to act in that respect.

Mr. Tom King: Does the right hon. Gentleman not recall that the previous advice was based on a statistical figure of approximately one in a billion? Has he not told the House today that the advice he has now received says that the risk is less now than it was then? Does he not appreciate that, if he waits for the CMO to tell him that there is no risk whatsoever before lifting the ban, he will wait in vain, because the CMO can never give such advice? The issue requires ministerial leadership. The House was encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman's remarks to understand that he would give that leadership as the new Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Does he realise what a serious setback today's decision is, both for the industry, and for consumers?

Mr. Brown: No, I do not accept that. The real setback for the industry would be if I were to ignore the advice of the CMO and create uncertainty about the safety of beef products in restaurants and in the retail marketplace. That would be an irresponsible thing to do. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's remarks about the SEAC report, but the CMO did not phrase his advice to me in a way that defines a mathematical average—

Mr. Michael Jack: He did.

Mr. Brown: The right hon. Gentleman should keep quiet and listen instead of chirping away from the Back Benches.
I accept what has been said about the SEAC report, but the CMO has not framed his advice in the form sought by the right hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King), which is a mathematical formula that has "acceptable" at one end and "unacceptable" at the other. The CMO has said starkly that the risk is very small but that he is not able to recommend a lifting of the regulations now. That advice is not ambiguous: he does not recommend a lifting of the regulations now, but believes that it would be proper to return to the matter in six months' time.

Dr. George Turner: My right hon. Friend will know that he will face some disappointed farmers on his visit to my constituency tomorrow. However, does he agree that the worst possible advice to give the industry is that it should follow the lead of the Conservatives, who appear to want put political argument ahead of public safety? This sector is but a small financial proportion of the entire industry, but there is a considerable danger that farming as a whole will become associated with disregarding safety for financial gain. The worst possible action is to urge the Minister to overturn clear medical advice.

Mr. Brown: I am looking forward to my return visit to Norfolk tomorrow. I am willing to discuss those matters

with farmers, but by far and away the worst thing that I could do for the beef market would be to create new uncertainty about whether the product is safe. By the time we have come through the BSE crisis our country will have spent over £4 billion of taxpayers' money, supplemented to a small degree by resources from the European Union, to ensure the safety of the public. It would be wrong of me, as a Minister of the Crown, to undermine public protection. Public safety must come first.

Mr. David Curry: Since this is a Government who say that they believe in joined-up thinking, how do they reconcile the continued ban on beef on the bone with their continued promotion of the sale of duty-free cigarettes?

Mr. Brown: It is perfectly possible to exercise choice over the consumption of cigarettes, and the chief medical officer's warnings about cigarettes are printed on the packet. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order.

Mr. Brown: I wish that Conservative Members would listen. I have just read to the House the chief medical officer's advice, which makes it absolutely clear that it is not certain in all circumstances that consumers of beef products would be able to exercise that choice. Reintroduction of uncertainty is one of the points that the chief medical officer properly warns against. Whatever the arguments about smoking, the fact is that nvCJD is invariably fatal.

Mr. David Drew: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that research continues into the possible infectivity of bone marrow? We already know of the problems with the dorsal root ganglia, but there has been no assurance yet about bone marrow. That needs to be worked out before any change in policy is made.

Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend is on to a good point. A substantial research programme into precisely that matter is now under way.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the Minister agree that the unfortunate and regrettable decision announced today will give our European partners a further excuse to delay the lifting of the beef ban and the introduction of the date-based scheme?

Mr. Brown: I hope that it will not, for two reasons. First, our European partners are reassured by the public protection measures in this country. It would be irresponsible of me to start dismantling them, particularly against the advice of the chief medical officer. Secondly, the date-based export scheme is for deboned beef, so the issue of bones in beef is not bound up with the resumption of exports from the rest of the United Kingdom; and the same is true for the certified herd scheme in Northern Ireland. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that I very much enjoyed the Irish beef that I ate in Bologna recently when I met the Italian Minister.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House tell us the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc) Bill.[Lords].

TUESDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Employment Relations Bill.

WEDNESDAY 10 FEBRUARY—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.

Until about 7 o'clock, consideration in Committee of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill.

Remaining stages of the Water Industry Bill.

THURSDAY 11 FEBRUARY—Until 4 o'clock, motions on the Welsh Revenue Support Grant Reports.

Motions on the Local Government Finance (Scotland) Order and the Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order.

Motions on the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Finance) Order and the Scotland Act 1998 (Transitional and Transitory Provisions) (Appropriations) Order.

FRIDAY 12 FEBRUARY—The House will not be sitting. The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:

MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill [1st Allotted Day].

TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY—Consideration in Committee of the House of Lords Bill [2nd Allotted Day].

Madam Speaker, the House will wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, it is proposed that the House will rise on Tuesday 16 February at the close of business until Monday 22 February. The business for that week will be announced in my next business statement but will include:

MONDAY 22 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of a Government Bill.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful to the right hon. Lady for the announcement of next week's business, and for an indication of business for the week thereafter. Will she ensure that, next week, the Chancellor will do what she and every other Cabinet Minister has done: answer written questions on details of his use of Royal Air Force and chartered aircraft? Does she understand that his continued refusal to do so, far from diminishing embarrassment to the Government, is increasing it—quite apart from any discourtesy to the House?
Will the Government announce next week the members of the royal commission on the House of Lords, which the right hon. Lady first trailed some four months ago? The commission already faces a very tight timetable, and it will be made more difficult if the commissioners cannot start because they have not been appointed. In light of the recognition by the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office that some Members were unable to participate in

the Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill earlier this week, may we have a debate in Government time on the broader issues raised by the White Paper?
Against the background of the exchange at Agriculture questions, may we have a debate very soon on the growing confusion in the Government's approach to food safety and consumer protection? On some issues, they overrule the independent advice that they are given, while on others, they say that they must abide by it.
In the light of the deteriorating situation in Northern Ireland, could we have a statement next week by the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?
Is the Leader of the House able to shed any light on arrangements for Easter and Whitsun, so that Members and staff of the House can make appropriate plans?

Mrs. Beckett: On the issue of the Chancellor answering written questions on travel costs, I must freely admit at once that I am not aware of ever having been asked such questions. Perhaps my memory is at fault. The Chancellor and other Treasury Ministers gave answers to questions on ministerial travel on 27 October 1997, 11 December 1997, 15 January 1998, 11 March 1998, 19 November 1998, 27 November 1998, 18 January 1999 and 26 January 1999—and those are only the answers that we can trace. The suggestion that the Chancellor has been reluctant to give answers does not stand. Despite the fact that the Opposition spent more money in government on perfectly proper ministerial travel than this Government, they are trying to make mischief and waste Ministers' time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Over 18 years."] I am not talking about 18 years; I am talking about two years.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked me when we hope to announce the names of members of the royal commission. I hope to do so in the near future, and certainly before the House of Lords Bill goes into Committee. I hope that that will be of assistance to him.
I cannot undertake to find time for a debate on the White Paper. We have already had—perfectly properly—two days on the Floor of the House on Second Reading of the House of Lords Bill, and all the Committee stage will be taken on the Floor of the House, too. I hope and expect that every hon. Member who wishes to contribute to the debate on the matter will be able to do so.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on food safety, on the grounds that there is confusion in the Government's stance. I do not accept that. I say to him, with respect, that if the previous Government had taken as robust an attitude to public safety as this Government, we would not now be needing to have exchanges such as those we had a few moments ago.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for a statement on the situation in Northern Ireland. Of course, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland keeps matters under review, and such can be raised through the usual channels, if that is thought to be necessary.
The right hon. Gentleman asked finally whether, for the benefit of the House, I can give any indication of the dates of the Easter recess. I cannot give him specific dates, although I anticipate that the Easter recess will include the week commencing Monday 5 April; indeed—as I know that it concerns the efficient handling of Members'


affairs—may I say that I also anticipate that the Whitsun recess will include the week commencing Monday 31 May? I hope that that is of assistance to the House.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that we will have our traditional annual Welsh day debate this month? It could be our last one.

Mrs. Beckett: With great respect to my hon. Friend, I am positive that he alone will make sure that this year's Welsh debate is not our last. I have taken heed of his request.

Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House give urgent consideration to the possibility of a debate in Government time on BSE? I do not know whether the right hon. Lady was in the House a few minutes ago when the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food made his statement. If she was, she will have noted that that the right hon. Gentleman made a remarkable admission by saying that the chief medical officer is effectively giving credibility to the idea that BSE can be communicated from cow to calf—the so-called maternal transmission theory, which has been discounted in the past.
If that means that cattle born since all infected feed was removed from the food chain in August 1996–30 months ago—could have contracted the disease through maternal transmission, that is a new development of alarming proportions for our agriculture industry, as it brings into question the date-based export scheme, and means that the export ban could remain in place. The Minister's admission is a dramatic development, and it is extremely important that the House is given an opportunity to debate it urgently.
Will the Leader of the House read the report in the Daily Express today, which suggests that in the past BSE information has been shredded in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and that therefore the Phillips inquiry cannot examine all the factors that have been involved?

Mrs. Beckett: I did not hear the part of my right hon. Friend's reply to which the hon. Gentleman alludes, although I did hear some of what my right hon. Friend said. I will draw the hon. Gentleman's concerns to his attention. I cannot at this moment undertake to find time for the debate that the hon. Gentleman seeks, but he will no doubt be able to follow up on the issues that he has raised.
The hon. Gentleman further asks me to give attention to the report in the Daily Express. I always give attention to what is reported in the Daily Express and other newspapers. I understand that there is no evidence that any BSE files have been shredded. The Prime Minister has asked that officials provide the inquiry with all assistance, and they are, indeed, doing so.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Has my right hon. Friend read the brilliant but very disturbing article by James Pringle in The Times today about the catastrophe in North Korea? Given the picture that he

draws of 3 million out of 20 million people having already died; of children suffering; of mothers offering their babies to people in the forlorn hope that somebody else may look after them; of women refusing to have children because they know that milk and food would not be available; and of stagnant industry, does my right hon. Friend agree that the House would be ready to support my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development in ensuring that food goes to the stomachs of the children, women and men who are suffering from hunger, and not to the regime or the armed forces? Will she encourage my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to seek any diplomatic initiative that he considers appropriate, particularly with South Korea and China, in order to find a speedy solution to this dreadful problem?

Madam Speaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman seeking a debate in the next two weeks on that issue? Perhaps he would make that clear.

Mr. Clarke: I hope that it may be possible, Madam Speaker.

Mrs. Beckett: I know of the great interest that my right hon. Friend takes in such matters and the great concern that he has always shown. I am not sure whether the matter was raised during questions to the Secretary of State for International Development yesterday, but I will undertake to draw his concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
I know that the House will share the concern expressed by my right hon. Friend. He will know that it is the Government's aim to make sure that all the assistance and support that we give goes to the people who need it.

Mr. Peter Brooke: As the Member representing Smithfields, may I reinforce the request for a debate on BSE from my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), given the consternation that will have been created in the industry by the contrast between privately expressed, highly optimistic departmental spin, and the contrasting disappointing reality today?

Mrs. Beckett: I have heard the right hon. Gentleman. I understand the disappointment of hon. Members who are concerned about the matter. I understand that only some 4 per cent. of our consumption in recent times has been of beef on the bone. But, of course, I understand the concern that is expressed at anything that causes continued anxiety. I shall certainly undertake to take the right hon. Gentleman's concerns, too, into account.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 102?
[That this House condemns the appalling and deplorable trade practice at establishments which breed cats and kittens for the vivisection industry and sell them to laboratories world-wide; notes that some of these kittens are only six weeks old when they are subjected to horrific experiments; and calls upon the Home Secretary to investigate this cruel trade with a view to banning these barbaric practices which put profit before humanity.]


Many of those animals are subject to horrific experiments. If my right hon. Friend cannot arrange a debate on that, will she now join me in condemning those establishments that put profit before humanity?

Mrs. Beckett: There is concern on both sides of the House about the use of animals in experiments and other scientific procedures—a matter on which my hon. Friend has long and staunchly campaigned. Any hon. Member would condemn any suggestion of animals being treated cruelly or inadequately cared for, whether for profit or in any other circumstances. The Government endeavour to ensure that there is stringent inspection of such establishments so that such things do not happen.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an urgent debate on Britain's long-standing traditions of religious tolerance and freedom of speech? Would that not give the House an opportunity to reaffirm the fact that, in Britain, for as long as anyone can remember, people have been free to express their religious views, however eccentric, cranky—or even, occasionally, distasteful—they may appear to the majority of people? May we, therefore, reaffirm the principle that, in Britain, protection is provided from persecution in respect of those things, particularly by the Prime Minister?

Mrs. Beckett: I think all hon. Members support religious tolerance and freedom of speech, including the Prime Minister. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman extends his views to the treatment in the press of reports of the schooling of the Prime Minister's daughter, which itself is based on a religious decision.

Ms Margaret Moran: Will my right hon. Friend allow time during the next two weeks for a debate on domestic violence, an important matter which the British Medical Association estimates affects the lives of one in four women in Britain? In my constituency in Luton tonight, it is estimated that the police will be called out to no fewer than six incidents of domestic violence involving women being beaten. Will she allow time for such an important debate and join me in congratulating Women's Aid on its launch today of a website, as another valuable tool for giving advice to women who are victims of that cruel and cowardly crime?

Mrs. Beckett: That is an issue in which my hon. Friend has taken great interest and about which she has shown concern, and I share her welcome for anything that can help to give the right kind of advice and support. I understand that a cross-Government response, drawing in the views of the Home Office, the Lord Chancellor's Department and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Women, has been published this week, and I hope that that, too, will help to inform and support those who might be affected.

Rev. Martin Smyth: In the light of press reports today, may I reinforce the plea by the shadow Leader of the House for a statement on Northern Ireland next week, in particular to discover whether the Secretary of State believes that the Chief Constable is giving evidence when he speaks unequivocally on television, or whether it is just hearsay, and whether the

chief medical officer for Northern Ireland has given any guidance about the possibilities of death by lead poisoning or sadistic punishments?

Mrs. Beckett: I shall certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's wish for a discussion on those matters. He will know that all hon. Members deplore the continuing level of violence and brutality. I know that he takes these matters seriously, but I should say that I share strongly the view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday that, if the peace process were to come to an end, the result would not be less violence in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Paul Flynn: When can we debate early-day motion 254?
[That this House notes that since 1974, 140 Government posts have been held by unelected members of the House of Lords; and resolves that as part of the wider reform of the House of Lords, such appointments should cease and that the terms of reference of the Royal Commission should be enlarged to enable such a recommendation to be made.]
Although there is a great deal of humbug from the Opposition about the quality of answers to parliamentary questions, and although in their period in office they zealously pursued a denial-of-information policy in respect of this House, there is concern when Ministers who are refusing to answer questions are not available and are not Members of this House. In one particular instance, I have had great difficulty over many months with answers to letters and questions while trying to put into the public domain a matter of some importance: the amount, and details, of medicinal drugs issued to prisoners.
Three deaths have occurred in Brixton prison, which was the subject of a case this week, and last year there were two deaths of women in prison. Strangely, the Minister involved refuses to publish details of how many, and what type, of medicinal drugs are issued in prison, on the extraordinary ground that the information is available locally but would be expensive to collect centrally.
I have obtained the help of a trust, which is offering to put up money to pay for that information to be available, but it is absolutely outrageous that a Minister who is not responsible to this House should deny Members of this House that information.

Mrs. Beckett: All Ministers, of course, are responsible on behalf of the Government as a whole and endeavour to give answers that are as full as they can be. I understand and share my hon. Friend's concern that full answers should be given wherever possible. Indeed, he and I well remember when the previous Government began to divert answers to questions away from this House. I have taken on board the point that he makes. It is not always as easy as it sometimes sounds to accumulate information, which may be gathered on a different basis in different localities.
My hon. Friend's observations about the previous Government are entirely right. A lot of the fuss that Conservative Members make—for example, about answers on ministerial travel—would certainly give people the impression, which my hon. Friend knows is entirely incorrect, that the rules have in some way changed. I suppose that, by Conservative Members'


standards, they have changed, in that the rules that normally apply now apply to us, because we are Ministers; indeed, that seems to be the basis of their objection.

Mr. Christopher Chope: Will the Leader of the House enable us to debate the £90 tax on food, which will affect about half a million small businesses and voluntary organisations? In the light of what the Prime Minister said yesterday, would not that give an opportunity for Government policy on that issue to be clarified? The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be disowning his own Government's policy, which has been to push ahead with imposing this unpopular tax on people who are in a poor position to pay it.

Mrs. Beckett: Let me make these points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, the Conservative party claims that the measure is some kind of poll tax. If the poll tax had been as little as £90, it would not have been nearly as unpopular as it was. Secondly, his request for a debate suggests that he cannot have been paying any attention: if he had, he would realise that what has been announced is that there is a process of examination of the draft Food Standards Agency Bill by a parliamentary Committee set up for that purpose. What my right hon. Friend said yesterday was that the process of that examination and the consultation about the Bill is genuine, and we shall listen to the views expressed. That is not confusion; it is a clear statement that the Government will take heed of concerns that are expressed. If the Conservative party had done that, it might still be in power.

Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: Will my right hon. Friend make time next week for a debate on the betting industry? Ladbroke's, in my constituency, is creating 80 new, very welcome posts to run its expanded call centre. Can I tempt her to take advantage of the new, improved betting service offered by my constituents? She may, for example, like to join intelligent rugby fans nationwide and back Wales to win the five nations championship this year, or she might like to bet on which Conservative Front Benchers will survive the coming, much-needed shake-up in their ranks.

Mrs. Beckett: I am only too happy to welcome the creation of new jobs in my hon. Friend's constituency, particularly because they are part of more than 200,000 new vacancies that are being notified to jobcentres every month and part of a picture in which total employment has gone up by more than half a million since the general election.
With regard to my hon. Friend's pressing invitation to join him in a bet, I certainly would not dream of getting involved in predicting the results of rugby matches or Conservative Front-Bench reshuffles. My stance on gambling generally, as someone who has always had a highly marginal seat, is that I gamble only with my entire life and livelihood.

Mr. Keith Simpson: If we follow the logic of the last question, is it not a sure-fire, odds-on certainty that, if the right hon. Lady continues to stonewall on the question of the Chancellor's travel arrangements,

the story will become bigger than it is at present? It is of direct interest to the House that the Chancellor is the only Minister in his Department to refuse to give accurate information about the excessive travel arrangements made by him and his colleagues. When will he come clean to the House, and give details of those arrangements? I know that Labour Members think that this is a joke—the Parliamentary Private Secretary certainly appears to—but it involves the Royal Air Force, whose members are currently under great stress and strain, and are about to go into harm's way. They have better things to do than bus around the Chancellor and his cronies.

Mrs. Beckett: Ministers in this Government have better things to do than waste their time, and that of their civil servants, answering nitpicking, mischief-making questions that are costly for the taxpayer. When Opposition Members descend to asking about the precise reasons for, and circumstances of, one 10-minute journey, the position is set clearly in context; but let me set it in a slightly wider context.
During the last Government's final three years in office, expenditure on ministerial overseas visits was in the region of between £6.5 million and £8 million a year. Under the present Government, it is running at about £4 million. The rules on travel have not changed in the slightest. During the last Government's final two years, 10 Ministers travelled on scheduled Concorde flights; under the present Government, only eight have done so. All this is rubbish. It is a phoney campaign by Conservative Members whose only aim seems to be to make it more difficult for Ministers to do their job. We shall resist that.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Yesterday morning, I was trapped in a lift here with five Conservative Members. Discussion inevitably turned to my Right to Roam Bill. One Member representing a Derbyshire constituency said that the Conservatives would not be here for the Second Reading debate on 26 March, because my Bill would be scuppered by my own Government. Hon. Members can imagine my shock and disbelief.
As my Bill—of which I am very proud—is to be published next Monday or Tuesday, and given today's newspaper coverage speculating on the Government's position, would it not be a courtesy to the House for the Minister responsible to make a statement here on the Government's approach to the right to roam on open countryside?

Mrs. Beckett: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's devotion to the issue. I am afraid that I represent the city of Derby rather than any of the beautiful Derbyshire countryside represented by, for instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), but I know that the House will take great interest in the Bill. I can only say gently to my hon. Friend that, because—as he said himself—the Bill will not be published until next week, I feel that it would be premature for the Government to reach a view now, whatever press speculation may suggest.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made


about the Government's preparations against the possibility of our joining the single currency? Do they intend to publish a White or Green Paper?

Mrs. Beckett: I had not given much thought to whether a White or Green Paper would be published, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's request to the attention of my right hon. Friends. As for the preparations, the hon. Gentleman probably knows that, shortly after coming to power, the Government set up a joint committee containing representatives of business organisations, initially to prepare for the launch of the euro—a matter much neglected by the last Government, but one that will affect many in the business community, irrespective of whether Britain joins the currency. That is still under discussion; technical and other matters remain to be resolved, and discussions will continue. But I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's request for a Paper of some sort to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Derek Twigg: In view of the welcome announcement by the Government of their campaign to recruit more nurses and the general interest in that matter, will my right hon. Friend find time for us to discuss nurse recruitment on the Floor of the House?

Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot undertake to find time for a discussion of nurse recruitment in the near future, although I share my hon. Friend's pleasure at the scale of both the effort that is being made by the Government and the response. He and the House may like to know that, up to now, some 8,000 calls have been made to the NHS hotline as a result of the Government's initiative.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In view of this afternoon's serious and misguided announcement by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, can we have an early debate on the plight of the United Kingdom beef industry? As late as last weekend, the Ministry was spinning the line that the beef ban would be lifted soon, yet today we are told that the ban is not even to be reviewed for six months. Can we have a debate urgently on the UK beef industry, so that we can review that matter, as well as the serious and looming problem of the spread of tuberculosis in the beef industry in the south-west?

Mrs. Beckett: I understand that the hon. Gentleman was in the House when that question was discussed for some 20 minutes. He will know that the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food follows the very clear advice of the chief medical officer not to lift the ban. There is understanding of the concern of the industry among hon. Members in all parts of the House, but the hon. Gentleman will surely accept that my right hon. Friend—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Gentleman shake his head. I fear that the Government do not share his disregard for advice in those terms from the chief medical officer.

Mr. John Bercow: Can we please have a statement next week by the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry, to whom I have written on the subject, to clarify his position in respect of the filing of accounts?

The right hon. Lady will be aware that, at Trade and Industry questions a fortnight ago, the Minister declared confidently:
Every company with which I have been associated has filed its returns in compliance with the deadlines set by Companies house."—[Official Report, 21 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 1008.]
As it has since emerged that that is not true-as demonstrated in the media and in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood)—because Juniper Communications Ltd. filed late on at least three occasions, does the Leader of the House accept that the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry should do the House the courtesy of coming here to make a statement to explain himself and, if necessary, to apologise?

Mrs. Beckett: No. That would be a complete waste of the House's time. My hon. Friend the Minister for Small Firms, Trade and Industry wrote to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) on 29 January to make it plain that his answer in the House referred to an inaccurate story in The Times diary about Attractions Ltd., about which, as I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman had written to him. The Minister has written to him again today.
The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is an assiduous attender at Trade and Industry questions, so he will remember that, in his early days in his present post, the right hon. Member for Wokingham informed me that the Conservative party would say nothing about policy in its first two years in opposition. His time is almost up. I suggest that they come in.

Mr. James Gray: If the Leader of the House will not find time for an early personal statement by one Minister who has strayed, perhaps she will consider early-day motion 269?
[That this House notes that the Right honourable Member for Hartlepool has not made a statement to the House following his resignation from the Government; also notes reports that his loan will not be redeemed from the family funds he indicated were due to be remitted to him; and calls upon him to confirm to the House that any profit from the sale of his property will be given to charity and not kept for himself.]
The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) has so far made no personal statement about the circumstances that lie behind his recent retirement, to coin a phrase. Nor has he yet told the House or anyone else what he intends to do with the excessive profits that it looks like he will make out of the sale of his house. Will she find time for him to make such a personal statement?

Mrs. Beckett: No.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the right hon. Lady arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement next week on the royal commission on long-term care? She will recall that, on 4 December 1997, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was confident that it would report in 12 months. It is now two calendar months late—and counting. With the exception of leaks to the press about what the royal commission is to say, we have heard nothing, despite the confidence of the Secretary of State, so will she arrange for a statement?

Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to arrange for a statement in the near future, especially as my right


hon. Friend the Secretary of State answered Health questions only this week, when the matter could have been raised. I shall certainly draw the hon. Gentleman's concern to the attention of my right hon. Friend. I am confident that it is a concern that he shares.

Dr. Evan Harris: The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill is currently in Committee. The right hon. Lady said that the Committee stage of clause 1 will be debated on the Floor of the House next Wednesday. Can she confirm that that debate will not be curtailed by a 7 o'clock deadline and that there will be a full debate? Can the right hon. Lady also confirm—it should not be a problem—that there will be a free vote on amendments to clause 1 dealt with on the Floor of the House next Wednesday? Can she further confirm that Labour Members will have a free vote on new clauses which have to be taken upstairs because of the way in which the Bill has been split but which relate to clause 1 issues rather than the abuse of trust? Opposition parties have already agreed that their Members will have a free vote.

Mrs. Beckett: I regret that I have not gone into the detail of how all those matters will be handled. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will know that the way in which they are handled and the way in which the selection is made are matters for the Chair. It is the Government's intention to have a free vote on conscience matters. There is no wish to curtail the debate on Wednesday, but it is sometimes for the convenience of the House to have a reasonable time for debate with hon. Members being quite

clear about when votes are likely to take place. I should tell the hon. Gentleman, who although being an assiduous Member is still a newish Member, that that is particularly true of a free vote.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the right hon. Lady be kind enough to reconsider her answer about a debate on the White Paper on the House of Lords? She will know that there is to be such a debate in the other place. She will know that many of her hon. Friends failed to participate in the debate this week because of a lack of time. She will also know that the Chairman of Ways and Means will have to ensure that every amendment tabled to the Bill is strictly relevant and that it will not therefore be possible to have a wide-ranging debate—quite properly so—in Committee of the whole House. Can the right hon. Lady ensure that we have a proper opportunity to debate the wider issues and the White Paper?

Mrs. Beckett: No, I am afraid I cannot undertake to do that. The hon. Gentleman is right that the House of Lords is having another debate on the White Paper. He will also know that it had two days debate on the general issue as long ago as October. It is natural that the House of Lords should wish to spend more time on this matter, but the Government are conscious of the fact that we are providing substantial amounts of time for debate on what is a simple Bill, and that all of it will be on the Floor of the House. We are anxious that the House should not lose sight of what the Bill does—as opposed to discussing at great length all the issues that could conceivably be raised on House of Lords reform as a whole. We have been doing that already for some 88 years, which makes us feel that one more day is not necessary.

Orders of the Day — Police

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1999–2000 (HC 179), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
One of the great joys of being the Minister responsible for the police is that one has an opportunity to go around and about our country visiting constabularies and meeting the dedicated men and women who serve as police officers. I have now had the privilege of visiting over a quarter of the constabularies in our country. One gets a sense of the sterling work that is being done up and down the land. The public are taking advantage of the framework now provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to build effective partnerships to help prevent and detect crime and to build the safety and security that is the bedrock of successful communities.
At this time, it is encouraging to hear from conversations with chief constables, members of police authorities and the officers on the ground their renewed sense of the importance of budget management and sound financial planning. Financial planning will deliver efficient and effective policing, to tackle crime and disorder and to help create safer towns and cities.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Boateng: I shall, of course, give way to the right hon. Gentleman eventually, but I should make a little more of my speech first.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 puts police at the heart of strategies to combat crime and disorder. However, tackling crime is not the job of police alone—which is why, in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, we placed a new statutory duty on local authorities and police together to create local partnerships to reduce crime. The chief constables whom I have met across the country, and their police authorities, are fully committed to implementing the Government's legislation and to working in partnership with other agencies in their communities.
Today's debate is not about funding police authorities in England and Wales only in the context of the numbers of police officers, but about their funding and their effectiveness. [Interruption.] The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), with a quizzical look on his face, asks "Why not?" I will tell him why not.
In 1994, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)—with the right hon. Gentleman's connivance and support; he voted for the change—took away the Home Secretary's right to determine police numbers. It therefore does not sit well for the shadow Home Secretary to ask why today's debate is not about police numbers.

Sir Norman Fowler: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: In a minute.
The debate is not about police numbers, because you and the previous Government removed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I hope that the Minister will give way to me, simply to remind him that he is addressing the occupant of the Chair.

Mr. Boateng: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and the previous Government took away from the Home Secretary the right to determine police numbers.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is becoming very defensive very early in his speech. Is he saying that there is no relationship between the amount of resources provided to the police service and police manpower? Is not the Home Secretary the police authority of the Metropolitan police? Does not the Home Office therefore have any view on police numbers?

Mr. Boateng: The relationship has to be determined by the chief constable, as chief officer and as the person with operational responsibility for the deployment of his force. The right hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity eventually—when we debate London, and the Home Secretary's role as London police authority—to make the points that he would like to make.
The shadow Home Secretary knows very well that it is utterly disingenuous for Conservative Members to suggest that the Home Secretary has any power to direct chief constables on the numbers of men and women whom they deploy in their force. Although I have no doubt that we shall return, ad nauseam, to his question on police numbers, he and the House should realise that that is not what today's debate is about.
Today's debate is about how, together—let us explore the matter—we create an effective force to bear down on crime and disorder, we build partnerships between police and public in our communities, and we fund those partnerships. The shadow Home Secretary will recall that the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe, with some pride, said:
In future, the number of constables in a force will be a matter for local decision … It is not a matter for me."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994: Vol. 242, c. 113.]
Now the shadow Home Secretary wants to make numbers a matter for me and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, we do not intend to allow him to do so.

Sir David Madel: Will the Minister give way.

Mr. Boateng: No, not now.
We have to take a good long and hard look at what the figures tell us. In 1998–99, total spending on policing in England and Wales is estimated to be about £7.5 billion. Around 65 per cent. of expenditure on the criminal justice system goes on policing. The Government's overall spending plans for the police over the next three years were announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary last July, following the comprehensive spending review. There will be an extra £1.24 billion for the police service in England and Wales between 1999 and 2002.
The total police authority spending for 1999–2000, to which the Government are prepared to contribute their share, will be £7.14 billion. That amount is known as the total standard spending assessment and it represents an increase of £186 million or 2.7 per cent. on the figure for 1998–99.
We have looked beyond next year and announced spending figures for the following two years to allow police authorities to plan ahead with greater confidence—something that they were never able to do when policing was in the stewardship of the Conservatives.

Sir David Model: A few minutes ago the Minister lauded the partnership scheme. He will know that Bedfordshire is at the forefront of that and is probably the best in the country. Why is Bedfordshire rewarded with such a dreadfully poor settlement?

Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman has been to see me with his chief constable and other Members of Parliament, including Labour Members, to pray in aid and make representations on behalf of the Bedfordshire force. I was glad to see them. I am equally glad to say that one of my enduring memories of that meeting is the success of the tripartite relationship in Bedfordshire between the police authority, the chief constable and the Home Office. Central to that tripartite relationship is the fact that it is for the chief constable to determine the level of deployment of the men and women at his command. We have given him and the authority adequate resources to carry that out. They will be able to build on the successful partnerships that they have created in Bedfordshire. I am only too pleased to give them and Members of Parliament representing Bedfordshire full credit for those partnerships.
Looking beyond the coming year, spending on the police will increase by 2.8 per cent. in 2000–01 and by a further 4 per cent. in 2001–02. That represents a real-terms increase, albeit modest, and demonstrates the Government's commitment to helping the police to play their key part in tackling crime and disorder.
The settlement also takes forward the Government's commitment to improve efficiency in the police service. We have set a target of 2 per cent. efficiency improvements year on year from 1999–2000. Importantly, we are not requiring the police to hand back the efficiency savings that they make. On the contrary, by achieving their targets, chief constables will be able to reinvest the savings to help meet front-line policing priorities. Once again, I note a quizzical, even sceptical look passing across the face of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield and his hon. Friends. I have news for them. All the chief constables and police authority chairmen whom I have met recognise the advantage that that will give their local police force and are grateful for it. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), who prayed in aid his case for Bedfordshire recognises that, as—I do not tell tales out of school—it was the thrust of the remarks made around my table when he came to see me. Of course the police want more and hon. Members will ask for more, but they recognise the value of being able to reinvest the 2 per cent. efficiency savings that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary won for them in the comprehensive spending review. Potentially up to

£140 million could be freed up to recycle into front-line policing. That is good news, as I hope Opposition Members appreciate.
In recent years, the police service has been comparatively insulated from many of the pressures facing other parts of the public sector. The efficiency improvements that we are seeking now are no different from those that were expected by the previous Administration of, for example, the prison service, the probation service or the national health service, and then delivered. For example, the probation service has made efficiency gains of over 20 per cent. since 1994, and the prison service has achieved reductions of 24 per cent. in real terms per cost per prisoner since 1992–93. In that context, the 2 per cent. target for the police is reasonable and achievable.
The efficiency planning process is an important step towards the best value regime from April 2000 that will require the police to demonstrate that they are delivering an effective, efficient, and high-quality service.
I now turn to the links about funding and performance. In recent years, national increases in police spending have not always been spread evenly across the service. Some forces have received relatively less than others. That is one of the effects of a needs-based formula, but increased resources do not automatically improve levels of service. That is not simply my opinion. It is the conclusion of the independent Audit Commission. Its latest annual report on police performance published on 28 January said that
there is still no direct correlation between increased spending and improved performance at the level of individual forces.
It continued:
Some of the forces which have improved their performance the most have had relatively modest increases in spending, while others who have increased spending significantly have either improved less than those with smaller increases, or, in a few cases, have seen their performance deteriorate".
We have to take seriously that lesson from the Audit Commission.
Undoubtedly, chief constables and police authorities up and down the country are beginning to reflect on their performance. Let us take an example. The spending of Warwickshire constabulary reduced by more than 5 per cent. in the four years 1994–95 and 1997–98, after adjustments for inflation. During the same period, the percentage of all crimes detected by primary means by the force increased. In particular, detections for household burglaries increased by more than 5 per cent.
Despite the operation of the formula, with its aim of trying to balance needs in an objective way, much of the present relative spending levels can only be explained historically. Thus, for example, according to latest Audit Commission figures, Merseyside police spend £158 per head of population—the highest of any force outside London and £43 above the national average of £115—while the next highest force—Greater Manchester—receives £22 per head less than Merseyside.
The Audit Commission also has a number of important points to make about police numbers. There is a general view that more police officers will lead to increases in the proportion of crime cleared up. I hope that Conservative Members do not adhere to that view out of a spirit of party political partisanship and that in their contributions to the debate they will make clear their understanding


of—and support for—the Audit Commission's analysis. If they do not, we will know that they are prepared to play party political games with the policing of the country.
I lay down that challenge to Conservative Members, and I expect them to respond to it. If we are to have a rational debate about policing, we must build it on the evidence available; otherwise, we shall not be taken seriously about an issue that matters so much to our fellow citizens and constituents, and which police officers and police authorities have to confront.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Boateng: In due course, but a closer examination of what the Audit Commission has to say on the matter may help the right hon. Gentleman to make his point. The report states:
In some forces, there were increases in the number of police officers per 1,000 of the population, but the percentage of crimes solved stayed the same or fell … This reinforces the point … that success in solving crime does not depend solely on the number of police officers available.
The Audit Commission made an even more telling finding. It states:
Some forces with the biggest reductions in numbers of police officers have also recorded some of the largest increases in the percentage of crimes detected during the same period.
That finding requires an explanation from Conservative Members, who would make a totem of police numbers.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister acknowledge that, for the public, deploying a sufficient number of uniformed police officers in the community is an important factor in reducing the fear of crime and making people feel safe on the streets?

Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, as I am about to deal with that precise point.
Of course, the number of police on our streets remains important. The public feel reassured by the visible presence of police officers on patrol. However, people are also concerned about efficient and effective policing. It is clear from the Audit Commission's report that we must move way from sterile and simplistic arguments about police numbers. Rather, we must move towards the efficient and well targeted use of resources, and the imaginative use of technology.
Indeed, what has transformed the public's safety in many town and city centres—and on many estates as well—has not been an increase in the numbers of police officers on undirected patrol, but a huge increase in coverage by closed circuit television, which in turn has freed up officers for detection and prevention duties.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in addition to the number of officers visible on the streets, it is also important that the police deal with matters that people consider to be important? My hon. Friend was in my constituency last weekend, and he will know that the partnership introduced by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which he mentioned earlier, has enabled the local community to discuss with the police those matters that they feel to be important.

The consequent reduction in crime depends not simply on police numbers, but on the police doing their job in accordance with the objectives of the community.

Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In Gedling, I saw about 100 people from the police, the public, the local authority, voluntary organisations and neighbourhood watch. They came together, giving up a Saturday, to determine local policing priorities and to build effective strategies to prevent and reduce crime. They did so within the context provided by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a law that owes its introduction, implementation and success to the return of a Labour Government in 1997.
We must be clear about the context of our debate. It is not only about partnerships such as those. It is also about technology, and about commitments to new strategies for policing being developed by chief officers and the men and women under their commands. It is important to manifest a police presence in different and novel ways.
Yesterday, I visited Stonehouse and Stroud in Gloucestershire, where one of the most successful innovations has been police information posts. The reality of rural policing is that the numbers game simply does not operate in a way that would provide the assurance referred to by the right hon. Member for Berwick—upon—Tweed (Mr. Beith). Information posts are being developed in post offices and shops in rural towns and villages. People are able to make contact with the police, and the use of new technology provides a presence that not only reassures people, but assists in detection and prevention.

Mr. Richard Allan: Will the Minister give way.

Mr. Boateng: I am afraid that I must get on. The hon. Gentleman may have a chance to make his own speech.
The Government welcome the Audit Commission's recommendation that local people and the local media should use the commission's report to ask questions about the performance and efficiency of local forces. The Audit Commission has given us an opportunity to stimulate debate about the most effective ways in which to provide policing services.
Only last week, we heard about the radical reorganisation being put in place by the chief constable of West Midlands police. He is streamlining senior posts, restructuring major investigation teams and transferring posts from headquarters to local sectors. All that will release more officers for front-line duties, with up to 300 more constables freed to reinforce local operational command units. The chief constable has said that his decisions have led to a turnaround in performance, with crime levels coming down and detection rates going up. That is an excellent example of well targeted, efficient and effective use of resources.
Similarly, the chief constable of Lincolnshire is restructuring top-tier management and merging some divisions to improve community policing. The local newspaper, the Lincolnshire Echo, succinctly put it: "Less brass means more coppers". [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh dear."' Liberal Democrat Members have made something of a political totem of their press releases to local newspapers such as the Lincolnshire Echo. In Focus, their own publication, they have sought time and again to engender


precisely that kind of headline. You should be revelling in it rather than pouring scorn on a headline that, for once, tells its own story. You could learn a lesson or two from it for Focus.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to have to pull the Minister up, but we are trying to encourage all hon. Members to remember the correct forms of address, and Ministers must conform.

Mr. Boateng: I stand chastened. However, there is more than an element of truth in that headline. It is not all about more money. We need to recognise and build on that point.
Let me turn to the details of next year's funding settlement. The police service has given its general support for the continued distribution of police grant in accordance with the needs-based funding formula that was introduced in 1995.

Ms Jackie Lawrence: My right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) initiated a review on population sparsity, which is part of the needs-based formula. Is that research continuing and when will it be published?

Mr. Boateng: It is certainly continuing. Hon. Members will regard it as particularly important research. If memory serves, that change in the needs-based formula was pioneered by the Minister responsible for police before the general election. The recognition of the significance of sparsity to an effective needs-based funding formula draws support from both sides of the House. We await the outcome of that research. I hope that it will be with us in the coming year. We will reflect on its implications for the formula.
The police service has given its general support for the continuing distribution of the police grant in the way that I described. We therefore propose to continue to allocate virtually all police grant by means of the funding formula. However, we propose a few changes to reflect the latest data available and in response to representations.
There are two principal changes. First, we are reducing the share of funding allocated on the basis of historical manpower levels in forces from 20 per cent. to 10 per cent. The weighting given to this element of the formula, which was introduced to provide some continuity with the old funding arrangements, was first set at 50 per cent. but has been reduced progressively over the past few years. It is right that it should be given progressively less significance as confidence in the needs-based formula continues to grow. The Association of Police Authorities supports the measure.
The other proposed change is to increase from 13.2 to 14.5 per cent. the proportion of funding allocated on the basis of forces' pensions commitments. This is in recognition of the continuing increase in police pensions costs, which I know concerns hon. Members.
I have some words on Metropolitan police funding because two other elements in the settlement are to be introduced next year. We propose that the Metropolitan police should continue to receive additional funding in recognition of its distinct, exceptional, national and capital

city functions. It has proved difficult for the principal formula to take account of those circumstances. To maintain public confidence in the capital and its policing, the special payment will be increased next year by £25 million from £151 million to £176 million.
Some chief constables and police authorities have criticised the increase as special treatment for the Met. It is no such thing. The Metropolitan police face extra burdens in policing the capital city and extra national responsibilities, of which all hon. Members are well aware. The overall settlement means that the Metropolitan police will receive funding of £1.744 billion next year, an increase of 1.7 per cent. over the 1998–99 figure and significantly below the national average increase. More than 30 forces will receive larger funding increases than the Met next year.
The financial year 2000–01 will see the establishment of the Metropolitan police authority, which will, for the first time, give Londoners a police authority that is democratically accountable to them.
Policing is rooted in local communities. Any police force will increase its effectiveness if it can secure the support and co-operation of local people. The Metropolitan police authority will give a significant boost to the Met's current programme of work to involve the people of London. It will therefore deliver not only a more accountable police force, but a more effective one.
The MPA will be part of the single financial structure provided by the Greater London Authority Bill. This covers the mayor and assembly, the London development agency, Transport for London and the London fire and emergency planning authority, as well as the MPA. The Greater London authority will set the MPA's budget. However, the Home Secretary will have the power to set a minimum budget to ensure that the MPA is able to secure an efficient and effective police force. There will also be provision for an agreement between the Home Secretary and the MPA to set standards for the Met's performance of its national and international functions.
A further provision of the GLA Bill is the amendment of the Metropolitan police district boundaries. With effect from 1 April 2000, they will be brought into line with the boundaries of the 32 London boroughs.

Mr. Tom Brake: The Minister may be about to turn to this issue. Will he clarify why the Met will receive no special transitional funds with which to meet the cost of boundary changes? I met Sir Paul Condon yesterday, and he estimated that the cost to the Met would be about £10 million.

Mr. Boateng: The Metropolitan police have made it clear that they can handle the additional cost—indeed, they are offloading their responsibilities onto the surrounding counties and we are compensating them. That suggestion is a little rich—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will get a Focus headline out of it. [Interruption.] I do not intend to be drawn further down that road.
It is important to recognise that responsibility for those parts of the Metropolitan police district within Essex, Hertfordshire and Surrey will transfer to those three police authorities. In the settlement, the Government have recognised that, in making sensible preparations for the change, the three authorities will incur significant


additional costs next year. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should be aware that we have set aside a total of £12 million to help the three authorities prepare for the change and meet those transitional costs. We have awarded an extra £2 million to Essex, £3 million to Hertfordshire and £7 million to Surrey, and those payments are reflected in the grant report.
I know that future changes to the funding formula, are a source of concern to many right hon. and hon. Members. Applying a needs-based funding formula inevitably means that there will be winners and a few losers. Not surprisingly, it is the losers who dislike the operation of the formula—and I fancy that we shall hear from one or two of them today.
I met chief constables from a number of forces during the consultation period on the settlement, along with members of their police authority and, in some cases, right hon. and hon. Members. In each case—I have referred to a meeting that the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire attended—there was no doubt that the police forces were delivering a professional, efficient and effective service with the resources available to them. Each and every chief constable made it clear that he did not oppose the principles of the funding formula. None had come to whinge or complain, and it is correct to say—as I do in the presence of several hon. Members who accompanied their chief officers to the meetings—that none did. That sort of atmosphere did not prevail at any of the meetings. Each set out how they proposed to manage their budget next year and their plans for future years. My officials and I were enormously impressed by their approach to the challenges.
Three recurrent issues emerged: the pressures of policing urban metropolitan areas; the problems of policing sparsely populated rural areas; and the continuation of the old force establishment component in the formula. We have commissioned independent, external research into both density and sparsity and I hope that the results of the research will be available shortly and prove to be conclusive. Meanwhile, we have retained in the formula for next year the sparsity element introduced by the previous Government, even though no objective evidence currently exists to justify it. Although objective evidence is lacking, the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on the value of the sparsity element have been reflected in all the representations made to me.

Mr. John McDonnell: In the review of the national formulae, will my hon. Friend examine the implications of the local formulae used within individual police authorities? I accept that the formulae used nationally have to be adjusted in line with changes in density, sparsity and other factors. However, the formula used within the Metropolitan police authority has a bizarre result in that individual divisions are penalised for success: where local partnerships work effectively and crime decreases, there is a loss of staff. My local division, Hillingdon, has lost 91 staff in three years as a result of its success. There is a need to go beyond the review of national formulae and examine individual authority formulae and their implications on the ground.

Mr. Boateng: That is a matter for local decisions: that is the nature of the tripartite arrangement. One of the

important aspects that we have preserved in the creation of a Metropolitan police authority is the continued operation of that tripartite arrangement. My hon. Friend has experience of serving with me on a citywide authority at a time when demand for a police authority for London was especially clearly articulated. He will know that the issue he raises is one that the new Metropolitan police authority will want to address with its chief officer, and the Home Office can be relied on to assist in every way possible.
A number of forces have made plain their case for recognition of what they describe as particular funding pressures: for example, Staffordshire and Warwickshire in respect of the Birmingham northern relief road; and Devon and Cornwall in respect of the eclipse. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State recently met a delegation of right hon. and hon. Members representing Kent constituencies in connection with the extra burdens faced by the Kent force in having to deal with illegal entrants and asylum seekers. We recognise that all hon. Members have views on the issue. I can say only that it has to be understood that, from time to time, all forces have to deal with additional, often unforeseen, pressures. We shall carefully consider the requests made, but I can give no undertakings at this stage. Even if special payments were justified on their merits, it might not be possible to find additional funds until the time of next year's settlement.

Mr. George Stevenson: My hon. Friend mentions Staffordshire and the Birmingham northern relief road. The police authority faces significant extra expense from having to police the protests that are occurring there, but the 1.7 per cent. increase in Staffordshire police authority funding is well below the national average. I hope that my hon. Friend will give the most sympathetic hearing possible to representations made in respect of the special extra costs that fall on authorities such as Staffordshire, which already suffer from a lower than average increase in the police grant.

Mr. Boateng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for so clearly making the case for Staffordshire. I have listened to him and other hon. Members and I shall bear in mind their representations.
In conclusion, I turn briefly to capital expenditure. After several years of actual cuts in police capital provision, we are heading for a period of stability. Police capital funding will remain at £144 million next year—the same figure as this year. We have also announced that our plans will allow capital funding to remain stable at £144 million until 2001–02. We have given the three-year figures, again in a spirit of partnership and to allow police authorities to plan ahead with confidence.
Changes in the capital receipts rules mean that forces are now free to use all proceeds of sale. We have freed them from the ridiculous restrictions of the previous Administration. Next year, all funding for major police building programmes is being maintained, as the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police authorities wanted. At the same time, we have been able to increase funding for minor capital works, vehicles and equipment by 2 per cent. for all forces. That is the first such increase for four years. That was never achieved under the previous Administration. [Interruption.] I hear Conservative Members muttering and moaning, but they


must face the fact that we have achieved something that they were unable to achieve. They ought at least to have the grace to recognise that.
This Government came into office with a determination to reduce crime levels and the fear of crime, to tackle youth offending and to reform the performance of the criminal justice system overall. We also promised to relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat. We are doing just that. That policy is working; it is delivering to the police and to the public and will continue to do so. This is a Government who take a stand against crime and disorder. This is a Government who put public money to most effective use. The order that we are debating today does just that and I hope that it will receive the support of the House.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Minister's speech was very long and did not get any better as it went on. It amounted to a weak defence of the Government's position. The Minister's central point—that there is no relationship between resources and police strength—is ludicrous. At one point, he came near to arguing that fewer police would lead to higher detection rates, which is also pretty stupid. In essence, that confirmed our worst fears about the Government's policy on the police service.
We shall oppose the order on this basis:
One of the functions of the House is to judge Governments by what they promise at elections. On that test, they have palpably failed the House—and, more important, the police and the public.
Those are the words used by the then Opposition spokesman on home affairs to explain why, in January 1995, the Labour party voted against the police grant in a similar debate. The 1995 order gave more money, not less, to the police than does today's order. That in no way blunted the then Opposition's enthusiasm to take up the police cause.
Who was the Opposition spokesman? Of course, it was the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who is now the Home Secretary. What was his case? It was clear. He said that
police services say that they will have to cut police numbers."—[Official Report, 31 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 962–963.]
I am not, therefore, exclusively arguing that case; it has also been made by the Home Secretary. He argued that too few resources were going to the police service.
Let there be no doubt that the strength and resources of the police service were part of Labour's promised policy in the last election. People listened to the then shadow Home Secretary and drew the obvious conclusion that a new Labour Government were promising more police and more resources.

Mr. Boateng: indicated dissent.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman denies that. Why, then, did the shadow Home Secretary make those statements in the debate four years ago? It does not make sense. Why did the shadow Home Secretary lead his party into the Division Lobby to oppose a settlement more generous than the one that he is making today? Of course

the public took Labour's actions into account. They did not believe that when the Labour Opposition said that, in government, they would be
tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime",
they were setting the scene for the biggest reduction in police numbers for 20 years, but let us be in no doubt that that is precisely what is happening today and that it will happen for the next three years.
When the then shadow Home Secretary was asked about his own plans by my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce), to whom I have spoken about this matter, he replied:
If he retains his seat, I invite him to sit on this side of the House and listen to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) announcing in his first Budget the details of our spending plans."—[Official Report, 31 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 964.]
My hon. Friend is back, and very welcome he is too, but that is the end of the good news. We all listened to the Chancellor's first Budget and his comprehensive spending review and we have all seen the results.
There is to be the toughest squeeze on police spending for over a decade. There is no question about that whatsoever. The financial commitment of the previous Conservative Government will not be increased as Labour suggested—it will be cut drastically. That is the essence of the charge against the Government. They have broken their promises. They knew perfectly well that if they went to the country saying, "We shall reduce spending on the police and cut police numbers", they would lose votes and they would lose seats, so they did not say that. They hid behind generalised slogans. There is no question but that this settlement marks the worst news for the police since the Labour party was last in government.
Let me remind the House of the record since 1979. Between 1979–80 and 1996–97, there was a cash increase for the police of 354 per cent. In real terms, that is above inflation. Indeed, there was a real terms increase of 72 per cent. during the lifetime of the previous Conservative Government. Under this Government—if they last for five years, as the comprehensive spending review assumes—there will certainly be a cash increase. Not even this Government would reduce the cash, but the real terms increase over five years will be less than 1 per cent. However one does the sums, the Government's financial commitment has been reduced.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can assist me on a point that I have always found slightly puzzling. When in government, his party always demanded, and rightly so, greater efficiency from all areas of public service—with the single exception of the police. The Conservatives have always been willing to overlook, at least in public but not always in private, the scams and rackets that have gone on in the police force and which, in many areas, led to very poor service. Those are now being dealt with.

Sir Norman Fowler: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raised that matter because I was about to make that point.
We accept the need for efficiency savings. Let us be under no illusion: efficiency savings in the police took place under the previous Conservative Government; they have not suddenly been invented. One need only talk to


the Metropolitan Commissioner, the chief constable of West Midlands or the chief constable of West Yorkshire to realise that efficiency savings were not suddenly introduced in 1997. They had been making those savings for years, and rightly so.
In the same way, the Audit Commission is entirely valuable in guiding the police and setting performance targets. We back that process and it is one of the factors that needs to be taken into account.
The question is whether the amount of cash and the efficiency savings will meet the costs of the police, including the unavoidable cost of pay and pensions. We believe that, given the Government's settlement, they will not.
Under previous Conservatives Governments—this cannot be denied—the strength of the police service in England and Wales increased by more than 15,000. No one in his wildest dreams thinks that we shall see an increase of that size under Labour. Indeed, no one thinks that we shall see an increase at all.

Angela Smith: I am listening with great interest to the right hon. Gentleman. He is arguing, quite commendably, for far more money to be put into the police force. Has he checked that with his shadow Treasury Front-Bench team, which described Labour's spending plans as reckless and said that the Government should spend less?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will if the hon. Lady or the Minister concedes that we spent more money on the police service than this Labour Government are spending. I give way to the hon. Lady.

Angela Smith: The right hon. Gentleman is asking me to intervene on him; it is most unusual. No, I will not concede that.

Sir Norman Fowler: In that case, the question does not make a great deal of sense. If she will not concede that we spent more, I cannot entirely understand her point.

Angela Smith: I shall assist the right hon. Gentleman. He is constantly arguing for more money for the police force, yet his Treasury spokesperson, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), described Labour's spending plans as reckless. Has the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) checked his proposal for extra spending on the police service with his shadow Treasury Front-Bench team?

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Lady is struggling, but I shall give her a reply.

Mr. Mike Hall: I bet the right hon. Gentleman does not answer the question.

Sir Norman Fowler: Even the Government Whip has broken into verse. I shall reply to him as well. I shall do so by adapting the reply that the then shadow home affairs spokesman, the present Secretary of State for the Home Department, gave in January 1995. I say to the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith): "I share the hon. Lady's confidence that the Conservative party will win the next election. If she retains her seat, I invite her to sit

on this side of the House and listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) announcing in his first Budget the details of our spending plans." I would add that, under the Conservatives, the police will have the priority that they have always had under Conservative Governments. That is something that the Minister cannot say.

Mr. Boateng: I can say this: the right hon. Gentleman really must not be disingenuous. He went into the 1992 general election on a promise to increase numbers. We made no such promise in 1997. However, between March 1992 and March 1997, police numbers fell by 500. How does that square with the paeon of self praise in which the right hon. Gentleman has just engaged?

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman is arguing against himself. He talks of a fall of 500, but that is against a net increase in the police service under previous Conservative Governments of 15,300. There is no question about that.

Mr. Boateng: indicated dissent.

Sir Norman Fowler: I do not want the hon. Gentleman to get to his feet again. He has already taken 45 minutes of the House's time, which is far too long in a debate of this length. He has the nerve to say that Labour did not make any pledges on police numbers. What on earth does he think the 1995 debate was about? Why did he oppose the police grant then? Why did his party vote against it? Why did the then shadow Home Secretary say that police numbers were going down? Of course pledges on police numbers and resources were made. The Government are wriggling. They know that they have cut the police force and police services.

Mr. John Randall: My right hon. Friend probably heard the intervention on the Minister of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), in which he described a 15.7 per cent. reduction in police numbers over three years—it is, in fact, over two years. He omitted to say that the Hillingdon division is now facing a reduction of 11 front-line officers. If the people of Hillingdon were told that at the election, the expression that Uxbridge or Hillingdon deserves better would have rang hollow.

Sir Norman Fowler: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.
It is not only Conservative politicians who are saying that police numbers and police resources are going down. So is every organisation in the police service: that of the chief constables, that of the superintendents and, of course, the Police Federation.

Ms Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way again.
Under Labour, police numbers are going down. In the first 18 months of this Government, there has already been a fall of almost 800 in the police service. Among the forces that have been affected are the Metropolitan police in London, Sussex, West Yorkshire, City of London,


Kent, Essex, Nottinghamshire and Hertfordshire. I know from experience and from letters that I have received that many others, such as Bedfordshire, are feeling the strain.

Ms Lawrence: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Norman Fowler: I will not give way. I thought that I had made it clear that I will not be giving way again. Others want to speak, and we have already had to listen to the lengthiest speech from a Minister on the Government Front Bench in a three-hour debate that I can remember.
The strength of a force such as the City of London is now below the 1979 level, posing the question whether this Government want it to continue. I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who is in Committee at the moment, has already taken up the issue.
Four years ago, the then shadow Home Secretary quoted the views of chief police officers. Those chief police officers have made it clear that they are not remotely happy today. Even more significant is the view of the Police Federation, which represents the bulk of policemen and policewomen. It says:
One of this government's main manifesto pledges was to support law and order but Treasury officials have swung the axe on police budgets. This will result in fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in front line services. The public deserves a police service which is properly maintained but with this budget they are being short changed.
In that, I believe that they speak for a vast number of policemen and policewomen.
Let us not believe that all commitments on police and crime were made before the election. A number have been made since, including a notable one from the Prime Minister himself. In September, on the day before the Prime Minister's speech to the Labour party's conference, the political editor of The Times predicted that the Prime Minister would endorse the zero-tolerance strategy following his talks in New York with the mayor of New York.
The political editor of The Times is a notable safe pair of hands. As it happened, he predicted exactly what the Prime Minister would say. In the unmistakable words of a new Labour scriptwriter, the Prime Minister endorsed the policy of zero tolerance, when he said:
Don't show zero imagination. Help us to have zero tolerance of crime.
Three months ago, I went to New York to look at the city's zero-tolerance policing policy, which has been outstandingly successful. Calling it zero tolerance is an inaccurate description. It is, in effect, proactive policing. At its centre are morning meetings, where precinct captains are personally held to account by the chief of police. The number of robberies, burglaries and murders are traced and, above all, the action being taken to solve them is checked. The result is that crime has fallen by 40 per cent. New York, which used to be almost a byword for lawlessness, has been returned to the people, and citizens are moving back into the city.
What was the prelude to that zero-tolerance policy? The strength of the police in New York was increased by 7,000 officers. I met no policemen in New York, nor any

criminologist to whom I talked, who would argue that the policy would have been so successful without those new police officers. Indeed, police numbers in the rest of the United States are also going up, and emphasis is being put on that. The Government have no such policy—we have heard it from the Minister. The policy that this Government are pursuing is that numbers will come down.
In New York, 40,000 policemen police a population of about the same size as London. Here, we have 26,000 police officers, but worst of all, the numbers are reducing. Over the past 18 months they have decreased by almost 600, and in my view there are further reductions to come. It is simply not possible to achieve the kind of success that has been achieved in New York with the kind of policies being pursued by the Government.
The issue goes beyond the detection of crime. It affects the nature of our police service and relations between police and public. We do not want a remote a police service. We want a police service as near to the public as we can get it. We await the report of the Stephen Lawrence inquiry. One of its central points will be relations between police and public. I shall in no way prejudge the results of that inquiry. We must learn the lessons of it—I make that clear.
I hope it will be recognised that relations between police and public in London are generally better than in any other European capital that I have visited. I have studied the police in most other European nations. I do not argue that things cannot be improved—of course they can—but we must avoid demoralising the police and generalising about the service. It would do the police the greatest harm if they were under the pressure of numbers and could not respond properly to the problems of the public.
In that regard, I say to the Minister that I am opposed to the idea that the police should be replaced, as advocated by one chief constable, by local authority patrols marked "Police Compliant" moving round the high street, drawn from the welfare-to-work programme and funded by central Government. Indeed, I would be tempted to laugh off that suggestion from a chief constable, had not the Home Secretary been quoted as saying that the chief constable's plans were "a real possibility".
We have an organised police precisely because of the breakdown of such arrangements. I am no more impressed when the Home Secretary says:
If you talk to the public, they understand that you cannot have a police officer walking up and down their street all day and every day. You never had that. That was a myth about what happened in some golden age.
However, the Home Secretary gives a self-evidently absurd example. Of course there never was an age in which every street was constantly patrolled. Everyone knows that. Everyone agrees with that, but there was a time when there were more police patrols than there are now, and when chief constables did not have to envisage local authority patrols in their town centres.
The Government's reply, which we heard again today, is that that has nothing to do with them—it is all up to the chief constables and the police authorities. The fact is that for the Metropolitan police, the Home Secretary is the police authority. He must have a view. He should have


a view on police numbers nationally as well. One of the key objectives that he sets the Metropolitan police is to provide high-visibility policing to reassure the public.

Mr. Eric Pickles: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the issue is not just numbers, but the abandonment of areas? In my constituency in Essex, we face the closure of a police station in Ingatestone, and the removal of policing from rural areas right across the constituency. As a police officer remarked to me, we will simply move crime around the rural areas.

Sir Norman Fowler: The Essex force is one of those that has been badly affected by the settlement. My hon. Friend, typically, raises an important issue for his constituency. I know from my postbag that the same complaint is repeated time and again around the country. It is not confined to Essex or the home counties. The Government should wake up to the complaint coming from ordinary people throughout the country.
Those people will not support a policy of smaller police forces, with fewer policemen and policewomen on patrol, and with substitute inadequate patrols set up to fill the gap. The public do not want that, nor do the police. It would weaken the link between police and public, and it would diminish the reputation of the police service in this country.
We will oppose the order this afternoon. We will oppose further reductions in the police service. The Government constantly speak about manifesto pledges and the mandate that they have. One thing is certain: they have no mandate to reduce the strength of the police service.

Mr. Denzil Davies: I shall raise the problems faced by the Dyfed-Powys police authority, the police force that has responsibility for my constituency, the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) and the whole of west and mid-Wales.
The increase in funding that the Dyfed-Powys police authority will have for the coming year raises considerable concern, I am sorry to tell my hon. Friend the Minister of State. The increase can hardly be described as an increase at all. It is close to a standstill or—to use the word in vogue—stability.
Many figures are bandied around about the efficiency of police forces, and one sometimes treats them with scepticism. However, as I understand it from those who are experts in such figures and targets, the Dyfed-Powys police force probably has the highest crime detection rate of any force in England and Wales. It is also probably one of the most efficient police forces, if not the most efficient, in England and Wales.
The published increase in funding is to be 0.8 per cent., but that figure should be halved. I am told that 0.4 per cent. of the increase relates to additional and improved security at ports in the county of Pembrokeshire. Hon. Members will understand that. The increase is thus a mere 0.4 per cent., against a general inflation rate of 2.5 per cent. I would not argue that every public authority should have an increase corresponding to the general rate of inflation, but the Chancellor's target for inflation is 2.5 per cent. The figures provided to me by the chief constable are for an increase of 0.4 per cent.
The national increase for the entire police settlement is, as I understand it, 2.6 per cent.—my hon. Friend said 2.7 per cent. Against that figure, I argue that an increase of 0.4 per cent. is extremely low and, indeed, dangerous. The annual budget is £50 million, and the 0.4 per cent. increase comes to £200,000—merely a standstill, and not enough to enable the force to maintain its efficiency.
My hon. Friend made much of the 2 per cent. efficiency savings. He mentioned a global figure that could be reinvested. What would the figure be for the Dyfed-Powys police authority, if it must absorb that 2 per cent? As it is already extremely efficient, it will be difficult to extract another 2 per cent.
The Dyfed-Powys force will face considerable problems. Next year the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will have to be absorbed into the system, which will cost money. Sadly, in west and mid-Wales, there is an increase in drug activity. Cases involving heroin and crack cocaine are causing grave concern to the chief constable. No doubt similar problems exist in other parts of the country, but we have not experienced them before in west Wales. If there are cuts in funding, there will have to be cuts in policing. I do not know what effect the settlement will have. Perhaps a number of police constables will be lost.
My hon. Friend, in an engaging and interesting speech, got himself a little lost when he rightly told us that more money does not mean that police forces will be more efficient. I entirely accept that one cannot just throw money at a problem, but I am not sure where his logic, or the lack of it, led him then. Certainly one member of the Bar is not the right person to criticise another member of the Bar for sophistry. I shall be kind and say that, at that point in his speech, my hon. Friend was at least verging on sophistry and casuistry, but perhaps one should not say any more about that.
There will have to be cuts. Perhaps they will not fall on police constables; perhaps they will be across the board. But they will have some effect on my excellent police force, which is probably one of the most efficient in the country. Formulae and needs assessments come and go, but Ministers are there to rise above these algebraic equations sometimes and determine these matters. I ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the matter. The consequence will be that the battle against crime in mid and west Wales will, next year, be less effective.
There is a further consequence. If a force as efficient as Dyfed-Powys is not given any more money, people will start to wonder what is the point of being more efficient, and having better and better target figures for the clean-up of crime as next year they will have less money. I am sure that people will not stop trying to be more efficient, but people do feel that way. Even if the chief constable does not feel like that and operates in a wholly rational way, people lower down may feel that way, and that is bound to affect the morale of an excellent police force.
Therefore, I ask my hon. Friend to look at the matter again. I know that Back Benchers always say that they are not talking about large sums of money—but in this case, I am not. At the margin, it is a little sum for the Government but, at the margin, it is a considerable


amount for the Dyfed-Powys police force. I ask my hon. Friend to set aside these quadratic equations, these formulae, and try to transcend them a little—

Mr. Boateng: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Davies: In a moment. My hon. Friend has had 45 minutes. He made a theatrical speech, but who am I, as a member of the Bar, to complain about that either?
I ask my hon. Friend to set aside these quadratic equations and to exercise some ministerial discretion.

Mr. Boateng: I have enormously enjoyed my right hon. Friend's important contribution. If I may address him not as a member of the Bar, but as a former Treasury Minister—a distinguished former Treasury Minister—I must say that it is a little disingenuous to suggest that it is possible to put aside the equations and the formulae in the way that he suggests. He knows that a needs-based formula has winners and losers. Of course, it is sad when one's own authority is a loser, but I am sure that he will recognise the force of a needs-based formula of this sort.

Mr. Davies: I was coming to an end. I am sorry that my hon. Friend has raised the question of Treasury Ministers. I thought that he must have been a Treasury Minister when I heard parts of his speech. He said that money is bad for one; that one does not need any money. He implied that if we give more money, less crime will be detected. From the way that he spoke, I thought that my hon. Friend had done the tour d'horizon of the Treasury and was now back at the Home Office. Even former Treasury Ministers perhaps would not speak as he did. He told us we do not need money; we can become more efficient. That may be, but Dyfed-Powys is an efficient force. It now needs a little bit more money to make it more efficient in future and to reduce the crime level in my constituency.

Sir David Madel: This speech is a last minute appeal to the Minister to rebalance the settlement, which, as it is now constructed, leaves Bedfordshire in an extremely difficult position. But I start by thanking him and his civil servants for their courtesy and willingness to listen when we in Bedfordshire went to see them. They gave us plenty of time and we were grateful for the opportunity to put our case. One of the civil servants present was from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I shall say something about that later.
The Bedfordshire police force recognises that, in any settlement, there will be winners and losers, but we cannot understand why we have come off worst in the country. The increase for Bedfordshire is only 0.8 per cent. The national average is 2.7 per cent. But among our neighbouring counties, Cambridgeshire has had an increase of 3.9 per cent., Northampton 3.7 per cent. and Suffolk 4.1 per cent. They have thus had increases above the national average. I do not accept for a minute that those counties need increases so far ahead of Bedfordshire in order to deliver an acceptable level of policing.
Next door to us are Milton Keynes and Thames Valley with an increase of 2.4 per cent. That is certainly part of history. As always, Milton Keynes gets its good fair share of state spending, to the detriment of Bedfordshire. Why it wants to burst into Bedfordshire and take part of our area, I simply do not know, but this is the wrong debate for raising that.
If the 0.8 per cent. is turned into cash, it is £0.5 million. Given our pension problems, the salaries and the wage settlements, and the percentage that has to go on them, we cannot make a saving of £3.2 million without major manpower surgery, both officer and civilian. When we went to see him, the Minister listened carefully and courteously to the Unison representative from Bedfordshire who explained what effect the settlement would have on Unison members in Bedfordshire.
We were not sitting around in Bedfordshire last summer thinking, "Oh well, we'll get plenty of money." We were planning for a reduction: for a worst case scenario. We were planning for a £2 million reduction. Last summer, the authority started work identifying cuts and effecting efficiency savings, but in their wildest dreams, the police authority and those interested never imagined that the cut would be £3.2 million.
The unfairness of the settlement is deeply felt in Bedfordshire in view of the successes that we have had and have had recognised in the past two to three years by Her Majesty's inspectorate and the district auditor, as shown by the figures themselves.
The detection rate, which increased from 21 per cent. to 35 per cent., did not just happen—it was hard won. The primary detection rate now stands at 29 per cent., domestic burglary has been reduced by 25 per cent. and non-domestic burglary by 50 per cent. Motor vehicle crime has been reduced by 30 per cent. As the Minister knows, Luton rests on Vauxhall's ability to produce many cars, so we are a high car-owning county. The detection rate for motor vehicle crime has risen from 11 per cent. to 25 per cent. One could go on putting such figures to the Minister, but I know that he is familiar with them.
The Prime Minister said that success in policing would be rewarded. Alas, we have not had a reward. Those improvements have not been achieved by Bedfordshire police alone. The police-business partnership has been an example for the country—a fact that has been recognised by the National Lottery Charities Board. The partnership work extends to Homewatch, of which Bedfordshire is one of the leaders nationally, Victim Support and the Luton crime reduction partnership. The development of all those organisations in Bedfordshire is such that few opportunities exist for them to bid for additional funding, as they are so very far advanced.
The Minister will know of the Leighton Buzzard crime prevention panel. Leighton Buzzard, like all Bedfordshire towns, has a rapidly growing population. Leighton Buzzard's concern is that the cuts in the police budget are not self-contained but will have a knock-on effect on other areas involving partnership with the public.
Moreover, if the reward for increased effectiveness is reduced funding—the Bedfordshire police force was one of the most successful in the country last year at reducing and detecting crime—the willingness of individuals to take part in partnership activities may well be reduced. Morale is extremely important in voluntary activities. Without a good community spirit, it would be far easier


for members of the crime prevention panel to concentrate on purely local Homewatch affairs than to spend time on projects of benefit to the community as a whole. Community partnership needs to be fostered, and arbitrary cuts, apparently unrelated to proven increases in efficiency and effectiveness, are not the way to do that.
The immediate future for the Bedfordshire police authority and Bedfordshire police looks bleak, and there is a strong feeling that there has been a great deal of unfairness, given the circumstances that we are in. All we ask is to be treated as others have been treated and to be given equitable treatment.
An increase in council tax is not the way out of this problem. An increase of 2.5 per cent. in spend would be considered quite reasonable by people in Bedfordshire, but when they realise that, because of the peculiar gearing, that translates into a council tax increase of 16.5 per cent., they certainly will not be prepared to accept such an increase for one moment.
We are constrained by the gearing of the system: we cannot shove up council tax in order to continue the good work that we do with the police. I ask the Minister whether, even at this later hour, there could be some marginal relief for Bedfordshire this year or, at the very worst, whether a means could be found of spreading the reduction over a longer period.
I should say a word about the DETR official who was present at the meeting. We in Bedfordshire are doing what people in Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire are doing; we are helping London with its housing. We do not have a standstill population, by any means. As the tragic deindustrialisation of Dunstable goes on, houses spring up like daffodils in April when the firms have gone, so we have to make police numbers keep pace with increases in population.
The Minister knows that. He once stood as a candidate for Hemel Hempstead which, as he also knows, is, to a great extent, about helping London with its housing. Londoners who move to Bedfordshire and to other places expect policing, and police numbers, to be as good as in London's. We in Bedfordshire are therefore somewhat puzzled at the Metropolitan police service's special payment, which has gone up by 16.5 per cent.
This is a terribly disappointing settlement and I am afraid that the Minister cannot match his great courtesy with some practical help and action for Bedfordshire. Let me give one fact and make one prediction. Here is the fact: between March 1979 and March 1997, police strength in Bedfordshire increased by 192, from 902 to 1,094; between March 1997 and September 1998, that strength fell by 43, from 1,094 to 1,051—backwards with Labour.
I remember when Labour activists, some of whom I see in the streets and some of whom come to my surgeries, ran around my constituency with propaganda leaflets saying, "You'll be safer under Labour. We'll do better on the police." They do not say that now; when I see them in the streets, they have a look of injured guilt on their faces because of what has happened.
I think that—deep, deep down—the Minister knows that we should have a better deal. I have given a fact, and I said that I would also make a prediction. Here it is: the headlines in the local papers in Bedfordshire in May will read, "Heavy losses for Labour in the local council elections." We will all know what has caused that.

Ms Hazel Blears: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in the debate, because tackling the problems of crime and disorder is probably the No. 1 issue in Salford, the city that I represent. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) is about to leave the Chamber, so I say to him that I was absolutely amazed by his contribution, which was almost obsessed with numbers. The number that he failed to mention was the doubling of crime that he and the previous Conservative Government presided over during the past few years.
I invite the right hon. Gentleman to come to my city to witness the results of the Tory years. Crime and disorder have escalated almost out of control, people are often under siege and there has been a huge increase in burglary, robbery and violent crime. That is the legacy of the Tory Government, and his use of numbers was very selective indeed. We should concentrate not on numbers, but on how effective and efficient we are in providing policing.
I welcome the settlement. The national increase is 2.7 per cent., which will give us an extra £1.25 billion of expenditure over the next three years and will enable police forces to plan ahead. The ability to look ahead with regard to the needs of our communities, and to plan for the policing that will meet those needs, has been lacking.
Unlike Bedfordshire, the increase in Greater Manchester is slightly above the national average, at 2.9 per cent. I am delighted—[Interruption.] It is not a matter of luck. I am delighted that police resources are being targeted on the areas of greatest need. Resources will always be limited, but we need to target the resources that we have on the areas with the highest crime.
I speak for many Greater Manchester Members of Parliament when I say that we have been concerned about the way the budget process has proceeded in the past year. There have been a number of scare stories in the community that we faced budget cuts of £15 million or £18 million and that front-line policing would be slashed. Those stories have caused huge concern to the public, and a great deal of concern to the staff involved, but when the police authority examined its budget—rigorously and in detail—and got down to the nitty-gritty of where it was spending its money, it was able to make £10.5 million of efficiency savings.
The police authority told me yesterday that it will be able to live within the settlement, without any reductions in front-line operational policing. What matters to the people whom I represent is that the police are there, making the community safe. The authority proposes to restructure the tactical vehicle crime unit and to deliver off-road motor cycling facilities through other people. It has looked again at its cleaning and catering services, it has reviewed the traffic warden service and it has even restructured the mounted unit. I hope that nothing painful has been done to the horses.
That shows that, with imagination and creativity, we can reduce expenditure on services, but that need not affect the front-line policing of our communities. It shows what can be done, if we have the time to do it. The difficulty is that these things are done hastily, and not in the best way, when people budget from year to year or from month to month. The Audit Commission report estimates that this country could save up to £80 million


in procurement, contracting, sharing training and sharing equipment if we thought about doing things in a different, more creative way.
This is new ground for many police authorities. They have not had to face the same pressures on their budgets as many local authorities have had to face over the past 20 years. It is a challenge for them to get down to the detail of their budgets and examine what they are spending their money on.
The Government, by introducing the best value scheme, are giving police authorities the tools to do the job. I am delighted that the Greater Manchester police area is piloting the best value scheme, and I am even more pleased that F division in Salford is one of the four target divisions where the scheme is moving on apace. The schemes are asking fundamental questions such as, "Should we be carrying out this function? How are we delivering the objectives that we want to achieve, and at what cost? How are our neighbours performing in each of these service areas and how can we ratchet up our performance to meet the standards of the very best?"
That is a methodical and rigorous approach. It has taken far too long for it to arrive, in terms of maximising the effectiveness of the money spent on policing. People in my community are crying out for more effective and more efficient policing that they are able to see in action. The best value scheme has smart objectives, which are supposed to be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timely. As well as smart objectives, I hope that we achieve some very smart policing in the city over the next few years.
We should also be asking some more fundamental questions about the role of the police. Should highly trained and expensive police officers be carrying out routine traffic duties such as monitoring speed traps, which we see around us every day? We should not shy away from such questions and it cannot be right that only the police can carry out certain sacrosanct functions. Provided that we have sufficient safeguards, and provided that we have thought the system through, we must be imaginative and open our minds to different ways of doing things.
Many of my constituents are absolutely enraged when they see six or seven police officers conducting an operation on illegal parking in an affluent part of our borough when they find it difficult to get the police to respond to violent incidents of crime and disorder in the inner city. We must look at our policing priorities. Should the police escort heavy loads on motorways? Should officers police football matches? Should they look after stray dogs or stray people who turn up on their doorstep? It is incumbent on us all to maximise the effect that we achieve from public expenditure, and the police should not be an exception.
The new powers in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will be absolutely crucial in helping us to rebuild the safety of our communities. The new range of tools that we have under that Act—the anti-social behaviour orders, parenting orders and reparation orders—are key to rebuilding the inner cities. I fear, however, that unless we free up resources by analysing what we spend our money on now, we shall not have the money to implement the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 fully, and to obtain the maximum benefit from the new tools that are at our disposal.
I do not think that we can have "business as usual" in the police force. It must be said that, in some police forces, that simply is not working. Greater Manchester police are improving their detection rate, but they still detect only about 20 per cent. of crime; the national average is 26 per cent. The detection rate for burglary is only 11 per cent., while the national average is 17 per cent. It has risen in recent years, which shows the low base from which we are starting, but the fact remains that performance is not good enough. We must try to ratchet up standards, and ensure that we deliver high-quality services. Our ratio of police to public is higher than the national ratio, but I think that highlights the issue. We are talking not just about numbers, but about how those involved are working, the operations in which they are engaged and how those operations are managed and monitored. That is what delivers the return for our investment.
I want to mention a couple of innovations in F division in Salford which I consider very exciting. The first pathfinder initiative for the new operational policing strategy involves taking officers out of headquarters and on to the streets, and making them take "ownership" of their neighbourhoods. A sergeant and six police officers are now dedicated to each of our neighbourhoods. They have a personal responsibility for every rise in crime; as for reductions in crime, they have a stake in the results that they are able to achieve. That could almost be described as a revolution in policing. The community now sets the priorities, and the police—along with their local-authority, business and voluntary-sector partners—help to deliver what is required. That is the sort of high-value, high-quality policing that we want, and this Government are helping us to achieve it.
Salford has just been allocated part of the burglary initiative moneys that will protect the most vulnerable people in my community. Some 4 per cent. of people in this country are victims of 42 per cent. of recorded crime, which is shocking. People in inner cities, and in constituencies such as mine, suffer a hugely disproportionate amount of crime. Measures such as the burglary initiative, which is intended to make their homes and communities safer, can help to protect them.
Today's debate is about spending our money wisely and well. In that context, I feel compelled to bring to the Minister's attention an important issue that has come to light in Greater Manchester over the past week. It has featured in our local newspaper, the Manchester Evening News, and apparently, for the past 12 months the Audit Commission has been investigating it—investigating, that is, alleged mismanagement and waste involving important contracts in the Greater Manchester police area.
It is alleged that the construction of the new crime squad headquarters at Bradford park in Manchester has exceeded its budget by £3 million; that it was necessary to tear out inappropriate equipment, which has cost a further half a million pounds; and that expensive consultants were engaged at a cost of £1.5 million, without compliance with European tendering procedures. All that is of great concern to the people of Greater Manchester.
We are hard pressed enough to need to secure good value from our expenditure. If there is any question of waste or mismanagement in the police force, I ask the Minister to investigate, and ensure that appropriate action is taken. Yesterday I spoke to the chair of the police


authority, who gave me an undertaking that the police authority would act swiftly and decisively, and that there would be full and public debate as soon as possible. These matters must not be covered up; they must be properly exposed and investigated.
Finally, let me raise one or two long-term issues that the Government must address if we are to continue to make progress in the policing of our area. The first is police pensions. I know that it affects everyone in the country, but I must point out that, in 1986, police pensions in Greater Manchester cost £12.7 million—7.6 per cent. of the total budget. This year, the cost has risen to the astronomical figure of £59.2 million, 16 per cent. of the budget. That is a doubling in real terms, and constitutes a huge amount to find.
We also need to review the reasons for many retirements and pension increases, to manage sicknesses and medical retirements, and to ensure that our police forces are monitoring such developments as rigorously as possible. Given that pension costs are likely to rise by another £8 million next year, and by a further £10 million the year after that, the issue is clearly important.
The second issue is the renewal of the public communications system in Greater Manchester. At present, we use local wavelengths, which costs us about half a million pounds. In future, there is to be a nationally imposed system. I understand that the annual running cost will be about £8 million, and that the capital cost has been estimated at about £22 million. Those are large sums for a police authority to find. I understand that our police authority will be asking for a meeting with Ministers in the next few months to discuss some of the larger-term issues, and I hope that it will be possible to arrange such a meeting. Another issue that concerns us is the policing of the Commonwealth games in Manchester.
As I said at the outset, nothing is more important to the people of Salford than effective, efficient policing that will help to provide a safe community. Certainly, today's settlement will help my police authority to establish the necessary structure. The requirements are demanding and challenging, but they do not come before time. We must ensure that the police, like everyone else, provide value for money, and that we obtain the maximum return for every investment that we make.
The Government have said that there will be extra funds, but it is something for something, not something for nothing. We must ensure that we deliver efficiency, effectiveness and value for money—and then the Government will support the police. We are determined to tackle the Tory legacy of crime and lawlessness in our cities. The statistic that we should never forget is this: crime doubled under the Tory Government, and that is what we must deal with now.

Mr. Richard Allan: This is a short debate on a big subject. I am especially pleased to follow the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), who always manages to deliver a large amount of information in a relatively short time. I am particularly pleased that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did not manage to escape without being given his share. I certainly agree with the hon. Lady's sentiments with regard to the last Government's performance, although I disagree with her about the nature of the settlement. I shall

say more about that later. I accept that she is sincere in wanting better policing in her area, but I do not believe that the settlement will lead to that.
I had hoped to return upstairs with the Minister and others for some more gentle consideration of sexual offences, but I understand that is now not going to happen—although we shall not have any more time for our debate in the Chamber. [Laughter.] When I say "upstairs", I mean "in Committee". I am glad that the debate so far has not become too partisan, except in regard to police numbers. I am not ashamed of my wish to dwell on that issue, as it is a key issue for my colleagues and me. The number of police officers has fallen by 781 since the general election, and we predict a further fall of at least 500 over the coming years following our analysis of the facts and of the implications of settlements under the last Government.
I was interested to learn that the Minister now believes that arguments about numbers are sterile and simplistic. I assume that they were not sterile and simplistic when they were employed by Labour spokesmen in opposition. I am thinking in particular of the current Secretary of State for Wales who, as recently as 1996, used similar arguments against the Tory Government.
The Government certainly deserve praise in one respect: they have learnt lessons from previous political mistakes. They decided not to make any commitment on numbers, because they saw what political difficulties that would cause. We heard a bizarre argument from the Minister about the Home Secretary's powers to dictate or not. He seemed to want a return to the former position—[Interruption.] Perhaps I misunderstood. He seemed to want to disclaim responsibility because he no longer had the power, but did not go as far as committing himself to taking the power back.
We find ourselves in a looking-glass situation. I think that, if my mathematics is correct, it would be possible to spin the Chamber round 180 degrees to hear arguments opposite to those advanced in 1995 and 1996, before the change of Government, from hon. Members on both sides of the House. What we have learnt in this debate is that, while the Conservatives tried to increase police numbers and failed abjectly, the current Labour Government are simply refusing to make any commitment to increase them.

Sir Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman speaks of abject failure. Does he deny that, under the last Conservative Government, police numbers increased by 15,300?

Mr. Allan: I was referring to the period between 1992 and 1997, which is recent enough to judge the performance of the previous Government.

Mr. David Heath: Having been a chairman of a police authority during the period of the previous Government, having gone every year to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) to say that we needed more police in Avon and Somerset, and having received every year the answer, "No," may I corroborate the points that my hon. Friend makes? Police numbers did fall.

Mr. Allan: That is true. In 1992, the previous Government made a clear commitment, of which the


Labour party in opposition enjoyed reminding them at the time, that they would increase police numbers by 1,000 over their period in office; they fell by 500. It is fair to say that that commitment was broken.
Perhaps one of the most amusing pieces of evidence that we have had in the debate was the Home Office press release that talked about a "fair and challenging settlement", which is a triumph of the spin doctors' art. "Challenging" is not the adjective that would have been used by Labour in opposition to describe the settlement. In essence, challenging means that it will be extremely difficult for police forces to meet their targets with the settlement. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has already referred to the Police Federation. Other organisations do not describe the settlement as challenging. They use much stronger language.
I should like the Minister to confirm a point of detail, if that is possible; she can certainly do so in her winding-up speech. We have examined the figures and believe that they represent an increase for this year of only £176 million, with the extra £10 million that has been factored into the Home Office press release being forms of grant other than police standard spending.
We believe that that gives an inflated impression of the settlement, which we calculate represents an increase in real terms of only 0.001 per cent—1,000th of 1 per cent.—not the 0.1 per cent. real-terms increase that the £186 million figure would give. Again, there has been manipulation to make the settlement appear better than it is.
When we look at the next few years of settlements, the picture is no rosier. Although the comprehensive spending review is trumpeted in many other service sectors, it does not give a particularly good deal to the police. As I have said, our estimate is that, over the coming years, police numbers will fall yet further under the figures in the CSR.

Mr. Brake: Is my hon. Friend aware that, yesterday, Sir Paul Condon estimated that Metropolitan police numbers would probably fall by about 100 in the next year?

Mr. Allan: As we all know, the Met has taken the brunt of the cuts so far. That further cut will come when we are trying to introduce new measures. We have heard evidence of the things that have happened in New York, where they have been able to increase police numbers and succeed in their aims. It will worry all Londoners to hear that further cuts in the Met are forecast.
We have looked at the things that the police force will face in coming years and will have to cope with. Policing the millennium will obviously be a one-off in the next year, but the pensions issue is an on-going problem. As yet, there is no sign of an ultimate solution. So long as it remains unresolved, it will continue to hit police budgets. I understand that the auditors have expressed significant concern about the level of police budget reserves because they have been spending over and above what they should—in particular, to meet the costs of pensions.
The ability to put in new information technology systems is important. I was interested to hear the Minister refer to his visit to Stonehouse in Gloucestershire to look at some of them, but the response from the chief constable

of Gloucestershire police in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) does not paint such a rosy picture on what it is able to do. He says:
The latest settlement is a very tough one for the Gloucestershire Constabulary. We have been allocated substantially less money than we had feared we would be allocated.
He says that there are severe funding problems in Gloucestershire, so at the same time as we hear praise for those exciting new initiatives—we all want to see them happen and succeed—practitioners on the ground tell us that it is a difficult settlement. We have to ask how far they can continue to innovate given such funding pressures.
We are concerned about the transfer of costs from central Government to the local taxpayer. Again, the Labour party in opposition was robust on the issue, accusing the previous Government of a con when they announced settlements that increased the standard spending assessment for the police, but kept the police grant increase relatively low, so that the costs were passed on to the taxpayer.
Again, the chief constable of Gloucestershire police says that it will need a significant increase in its council tax contribution in the precepts—he talks about a 22 per cent. increase—to recover all the funds, which it is entitled to do. The Government need to be more explicit about who is actually paying for the settlement and about the fact that there will be an increase in taxation locally, which should not be hidden by the fact that they can say that general taxation nationally has not been increased, so taxes have not gone up. The Conservatives tried local tax increases year on year, and the Labour party in opposition rightly attacked them for it, yet we hear silence on the issue when it comes to this year's settlement.
I refer to those who have criticised the settlement. The Association of Chief Police Officers was robust on the issue:
Let's be realistic. Government cannot expect any public service, least of all the police, with their wide responsibilities, to meet all the public's expectations with such a shortfall. Law and order is a high public priority. This settlement means the Service may have to cut back its front-line services.
The association is not talking about administration or back-room staff. I do not think that it is talking about traffic wardens putting tickets on cars. It is talking about front-line policing services. ACPO believes that cuts there may be the consequence of the settlement.
Again, the Association of Police Authorities, which does much work in the sector, has been clear about its view:
The overall national increase of 2.75 per cent. in police spending is less than half what the APA calculates forces need to maintain their present levels of service.
With all the pressures that I have talked about, forces need twice the settlement that they have been given. Costs that simply cannot be avoided—police pay and pensions—are not covered by the latest settlement. The Association of Police Authorities, which has to set the budgets and which has the greatest in-depth knowledge of how police budgets work, is making a clear statement that the settlement is not enough.
The police have a vital role to play in fighting both crime and the fear of crime. We have been clear about the role of police officers on the beat in combating fear of crime. We believe that the Government share our


objective of combating fear of crime. We wholeheartedly support some of the developments recently through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local policing audits—the crime audits—and local community safety plans, which are wonderful innovations, but we want the police to have the resources to implement them. Our greatest fear is that public expectation has been built up by the Government and that the Government are prepared to will the ends but not the means to support the police. On that basis, we feel unable to support the police settlement.

Maria Eagle: I wish to raise an issue of general public importance that was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), but in respect of a more specific example. The issue is how police authorities account to the public for the way in which they spend their money and how transparently they do so.
The example involves South Yorkshire police and the on-going reverberations following the Hillsborough disaster, which happened almost 10 years ago; I am sorry that they are still going on, but they are. This is a matter of great importance to the people of Merseyside and my constituents, even though it relates to the South Yorkshire police authority; it also illustrates the more general point of public interest that I wish to raise.
A number of my constituents are families bereaved as a result of the Hillsborough disaster. I know that they feel that, after all this time, the full truth of what happened has still not emerged. They feel that they have still not had the answers to all the questions that they have raised and that they have never received justice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she may be labouring under a misapprehension as to the scope of the order, which is confined to consideration of the size and distribution of the grants that are proposed in the report before the House. I am not sure that she can extend quite into the area that she thought she might.

Maria Eagle: I hope that I can, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am aware of the scope of the order. Of course, I will be guided by you, if you feel that I cannot, but I felt that I needed to set scene. I wish to discuss the way in which South Yorkshire police authority is spending its grant and the value for money that that spending represents. If you wish, I could move straight on to that, although, without a little background. hon. Members may find it a little more difficult to follow my points. Obviously, I am willing to be guided by you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand what the hon. Lady is saying, but she must keep within the spirit and scope of the debate. She can give a short preface to the point, but then I must require her to come well within the terms of the order.

Maria Eagle: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Following the scrutiny of the evidence surrounding the Hillsborough disaster, a vast volume of documentation was placed in the Library. As a result of information arising out of that documentation, the families of the

victims decided that they wanted to conduct some private prosecutions of retired officers, Mr. Duckenfield and Mr. Murray, of South Yorkshire police—now long retired. I want to raise the way in which the defence of those cases is being funded by South Yorkshire police, whether it is transparent and whether it is an effective use of money.
Those two defendants have the same rights to a proper defence as anyone else accused of criminal offences, funded publicly if that is necessary. The legal aid fund exists to facilitate just such cases. Also, I have no objection to the general policy operated by most police authorities. They take the view that it is proper to spend some of the money allocated to them in their grant to fund, in appropriate circumstances, the defence of police officers accused of criminal offences. I am aware that there is Home Office guidance in relation to just that issue, considering when and whether funding of that nature should be provided. It is for the chief constable to decide whether it should. We can all think of circumstances in which the funds should be provided—for example, when an officer is accused of a criminal assault when making an arrest and is then pursued by private prosecution. There are some clear cases on which we could all agree, but there are some circumstances in which the money should not be provided.
In this case, the officers concerned retired on health grounds. In one case there were serious outstanding disciplinary offences and, in the other, the disciplinary offences were dropped because of the retirement of the other officer. The officers concerned and the force were severely criticised by Lord Taylor in the public inquiry following the disaster. He said that the main cause of the disaster was a loss of police control.
As a result of the retirements, nobody within the police force was ever held to account for that loss of control. That is one of the main reasons why the families concerned still feel a grievance.
I recognise that some hon. Members may disagree with me and that there are arguments on both sides about whether funding should be forthcoming, even though we may all agree that there are some circumstances in which it should. If there is a decision to provide funding in such a case, it has implications. The funding as it appears to have been granted in this case is without limit. The force has made it clear that it intends to fund the defence right through to the final trial. The funding has been provided without proper review or checks for value for money being put in place. It seems to have priority over all other policing issues. The many members of the Bar who were referred to earlier could attest to the fact that the final cost could be millions of pounds. I am not exaggerating. I am not a member of the Bar, but—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Lady enough scope. She must now come to the substance of the matter before the House, which is the size and distribution of the grant to police forces for the coming year.

Maria Eagle: My point is that, potentially, millions of pounds could be spent on those cases with no checks having been put in place, despite the fact that South Yorkshire police authority has written to the Home Office in respect of the adequacy of its funding for the coming year.
I have a written answer which suggests that there has been a letter from the clerk to the South Yorkshire police authority raising a number of issues about the proposed funding settlement for the following year. That is in spite of the fact that the funds seem to have been provided without any proper checks or balances.
I wrote to ask about any checks being placed on the potential spending by South Yorkshire police authority. I asked what procedures the authority and the force had put in place to ensure that the funds were spent appropriately and to ensure that they represented good value for money. I asked when the arrangements would be reviewed, given the open-ended nature of the commitment. I received a reply from the assistant chief constable which referred me to the clerk and treasurer of the police authority. Unfortunately, the reply from the police authority answers none of the questions that I raised.
I hope that the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) will be able to refer to my points, at least in part, in her reply to the debate. Can she tell me how the Government can be assured that the police authority is spending its money appropriately and achieving value for money, since it has undertaken such an open-ended commitment while seeking further funds from the Government in order to carry out its basic duty, which is to provide policing services to south Yorkshire?

Mr. John Horam: My constituency featured heavily in the Christmas television schedules in relation to crime and the police because the Christmas edition of the long-running and excellent series "The Bill" was shot on Orpington high street. If that was the only connection that my constituency had with the police, my constituents and I would be delighted. My constituents were thrilled to have the leading actors in the high street for quite some time.
Of course, even in leafy Orpington, there is theft, burglary, violence and bad behaviour, as there is in every other constituency in the country. My constituents have been extremely concerned about the number of recent incidents, and many elderly residents, in particular, are concerned about the level of crime.
I have two concerns. First, after several years of real progress in combating crime in Orpington and Bromley more generally, that great improvement seems to be being reversed. The figures for last year, which have only just been released, show an increase in crime, even in the Bromley division of the London area. It is a matter of great concern that things have suddenly begun to unravel in entirely the wrong direction.
Secondly, police resources to deal with the increase in crime are being cut. As we know, the settlement for the Metropolitan division shows a cash increase of 1.7 per cent. That is not much for a cash increase. The real figure shows a substantial decrease after taking into account necessary increases in salaries, pensions and so on. We are facing not stability, as mentioned by the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies), but a decrease in the provision for my area.
This year—not just next year—the manpower available to the Bromley division decreased by 10. Over London as a whole, the number of police has decreased by 571 since

the general election. During the debate, the Liberal Democrat spokesman said that it is expected to decline by a further 100 over the next 12 months. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) pointed out in an article in the Evening Standard only yesterday that the age profile of the Metropolitan police is such that the number leaving the force over the next few years will increase considerably. That, too, poses a potential crisis in London. All those factors are having an effect and are damaging people's confidence in the ability of the police to deal with crime effectively.
There has been a major reorganisation in my area over the past two or three years. It is not a question of efficiency having been ignored and now suddenly being taken into account. That reorganisation affected all sectors of my constituency and Bromley more generally and we hoped that it would lead to more efficient situation for the police in which they could settle down and operate for some time with no further exhortations to reorganise even more.
This is a short debate and we will not all get an opportunity to speak. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) want to be associated with my remarks.
The current situation, together with the new settlement, will lead to a further reduction in the number of police in the Bromley area. We expect to lose another 10 officers in addition to the 10 that will have been lost by the end of March. Moreover, we are facing the possible closure of four police stations. We believe that two of those police stations, one in my constituency at Biggin Hill and one in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, are almost certain to close. Furthermore, we expect additional police station closures, including one in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and another in my own constituency, at St. Mary Cray.
The possibility of closing the St. Mary Cray station is very distressing, as it was opened in only 1992, after a long public campaign by me, the local newspaper and local councillors, to their credit. So, in 1992, we managed to obtain a new police station at St. Mary Cray; seven years later, we are faced with the closure of that self-same station. Closures are possible even in Bromley, which has hitherto been in a well-resourced part of London.
The Minister will understand the dismay with which Opposition Members are greeting the Government's proposed settlement. Under the previous, Conservative Government, police resources, new police stations and police numbers all increased. Now, within 18 months of a Labour Government being elected, we are faced with the possibility of four police station closures, fewer police officers and an increase in crime. That is the reality facing Bromley.
I am concerned also about the effect of the Government's changes on the community's institutional structures supporting efforts to deal with crime. As the Minister rightly said, fighting crime is a matter not only for police but for local authorities and local people. The effort to develop community action has been made faithfully for many years, at the behest of successive Governments, and has done well in Bromley.
The focus of efforts to build a partnership in Bromley has been the Bromley police-community liaison group, which meets regularly. I attend its meetings, as do, my


colleagues, local councillors and local people. The mood at its meetings has been grim. I received a report of the most recent meeting from a resident whom I know well, who is a responsible and public-minded person who does not reach judgments lightly. He said that
Overall the members of the public are not happy with the way the Group runs.
He was referring to the liaison group, and continued:
While the police listen to what is said, there is seldom any sort of positive response which we would like…It seems that all we can look forward to is a continually diminishing police force even less able to enforce all the laws and discharge matters which they, and no one else, currently have responsibility for.
The liaison group notes, among other things, that people are less willing than they were to turn out for consultative meetings. People no longer see the point of the meetings, at which police listen politely and all local concerns are voiced, but after which nothing happens. Police, quite frankly, say that they do not have the resources to respond to local concerns. That is the reality of life on the ground floor.
I can only say to the Minister that the situation in my constituency paints a grim picture that does not offer much hope. I strongly support my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) in opposing the motion.

Mr. John Greenway: In last year's police grant debate—in which I was, I think, the only Front Bencher now in the Chamber to participate—I warned that the Government's failure to provide adequate resources for our police service would result in fewer officers. We are now beginning to see the full realisation of that prediction.
Since 1 May 1997, there are 780 fewer police officers. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) seemed to think that police numbers declined under the Tories. The fact is that the Greater Manchester force gained 500 more police officers during the Tory's 18 years in office. Now—already, since the general election—it has 30 fewer officers.
The number of police officers leaving the police service grows daily, and those officers are not being replaced. My hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) reminded us in his speech of the problems in the Metropolitan police.
The settlement will make matters significantly worse. Clearly, a 2.7 per cent. increase is nowhere near enough to maintain the police service. Moreover, all police organisations are making the same gloomy forecast. As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) reminded us, two months ago, the Association of Chief Police Officers warned that a 6.1 per cent. funding increase was necessary for police forces simply to maintain current services. I should remind the hon. Gentleman of how well his own police force, in South Yorkshire, did during the Conservatives' years in government, when that force increased by 600 officers.
Chief constables have rightly questioned the basis for the Government's demand for 2 per cent. efficiency savings, whereas the independent Audit Commission—which the Minister prayed in aid—found scope for savings of only 0.25 per cent. Police superintendents are predicting significant manpower reductions—of

thousands, not hundreds of officers. Across the country, one has only to tot up the manpower levels that police forces predict they will have in a year's time to realise that we are talking about manpower reductions of thousands, not hundreds, of officers.
It is predicted that, by the end of this year, North Yorkshire will have 50 fewer police officers. North Yorkshire police comprise 1 per cent. of the police service. If its cuts were repeated across the country, there would indeed be 5,000 fewer officers nationally.
It is predicted that there will be 100 fewer officers at Thames Valley police, which comprise just under 3 per cent. of the police service. A similar cut made nationally would entail 3,000 fewer officers.
Police superintendents have branded the settlement as
the worst spending round in a generation".
The grant shows a complete lack of political commitment to the police and demonstrates that police are not one of the Government's priorities. Ministers have the cheek to challenge us about providing resources to police. Special advisers, focus groups and lavish parties for pop stars at No. 10 Downing street are the Government's priorities, as are the more than 180 new task forces that the Government have established. Ministerial office refurbishments are the Government's priority, as is so much overseas travel by Ministers that some Ministers are refusing to answer questions about it, as we saw today. But the Government do not include the police service among their priorities.
The Government are running down the police service—but why? What is the plan? Will beat officers be replaced, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) asked earlier, by neighbourhood wardens? Will unemployed people be recruited to patrol local estates, with powers to intervene and arrest? The police service is predicting that that may happen.

Mr. Boateng: Nonsense.

Mr. Greenway: The police service is making such predictions to Opposition Members. It is what we have been told by Surrey's chief constable, the other Mr. Blair.
Did the public vote for such changes? They were never asked about any such proposals. In her reply, perhaps the Minister will tell us the Government's hidden agenda. Surely Ministers cannot fail to notice the effects of their policies and mismanagement on the numbers of serving police officers.
The Association of Police Authorities questioned how a cash increase of £186 million can pay for spending commitments of £438 million. Pay and pension costs alone will rise by £250 million. The fact is that the resources of 10 police authorities will grow by less than 2 per cent., and that they will face a stark choice between cuts in police numbers or a massive hike in council tax precepts—or both: fewer police at greater cost.
The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) reminded us of the plight of one of our smallest police forces, in Dyfed Powys, in west Wales, which has barely more than 1,000 police officers.
The police authorities that will be worst affected by the settlement will be those that have already had a shake-out and made savings. How are they supposed to make further savings?
The cuts will not be painless for anyone. As my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington said, police stations will close across south-east London. Cumbria—which is another of our smallest police forces—will close 10 stations. People may say, "Those will be mostly rural beat houses, which went in North Yorkshire more than 10 years ago." The Minister may think that that is the right approach, but it is not popular and results in a serious diminution of service.
Some forces have already stripped out large numbers of senior ranks. There has been a reduction of approximately one in four ACPO ranks across the country, with 700 fewer superintendents in the past six or seven years. I am glad that the Minister agrees with that. As he told us earlier, a flattening out of the rank structure in the police service is needed. However, he should read the report of last year's debate. When I pointed that out to his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), he bluntly disagreed.
The Government are trying to have it both ways. It is on the record in Hansard that there was an increase of 2,300 in the number of constables between 1992 and 1997, but the Government and the Liberal Democrats trot out the statistic that the number of officers fell by 500. Of course that is the case, because 2,700 senior ranks were stripped out. Any further pressure for efficiency savings will result in fewer officers.
Much of the restructuring that happened in the 1990s was a direct consequence of giving greater freedom to chief constables to manage their resources. The Minister could not tell us whether he agreed with that. Chief constables were enabled to do what was best for their force and their local needs. The Government have triggered off a frantic scramble to meet the straitjacket imposed by the requirement for 2 per cent. efficiency savings year on year, regardless of circumstances. The scope for saving varies from force to force, yet all must meet the same 2 per cent. target regardless.
How will delivery of the 2 per cent. efficiency savings be judged? If it is not manpower-related, how else? Some 80 per cent. of police funding is spent on staff costs, most of which funds police activity. With very few exceptions, the police are unable to measure policing activity. How will years two and three be measured? How will the financial sanctions threatened by the Home Secretary work? They will be a double blow for already hard-pressed local communities, whose police force will be penalised. Given how much police spending goes on paying officers, is it any wonder that staff associations are questioning the Government's intentions on pay? Rumours are rife throughout the police service that the Government are set to renege on the pay formula that has lasted for 20 years. Will the Minister take the opportunity of this debate to give them some reassurance and deny the rumour?
Memories of the collapse of police morale under the Labour Governments of the late 1960s and 1970s have been rekindled by the Government's obvious lack of commitment to the police service.

Mr. Boateng: Get real.

Mr. Greenway: The Minister should go and talk to the police service. I did so yesterday and was told

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister should not speak from a sedentary position.

Mr. Greenway: Summing up the feelings of the police service, a serving officer told me that morale was at rock bottom and spiralling downwards. The House should take seriously the real danger of a demoralised police force. The only gainers from that will be the criminals, while the general public will be the losers—the people who were taken in by the language of the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary. They are beginning to see that "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" was a slogan for opposition, but not a policy for government.
Being tough on crime under Labour means releasing prisoners early to reoffend within 24 hours. We have warned for 18 months that that would happen. The Minister shakes his head, but it is happening. A prisoner released under tagging has reoffended within 24 hours. It is clear that he should never have been released.
What about being tough on the causes of crime? The settlement shows that that has turned into being tough on the people who fight crime. The Government's comprehensive spending review, which lies behind the settlement, has resulted in a comprehensive betrayal of the police. By voting against the motion, we shall be urging the Government to think again.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield reminded us, four years ago, when the Home Secretary was the shadow Home Secretary, he sought to justify voting against the police grant settlement because he said that some police forces would have to cut numbers. That year the Government gave an increase in grant of nearly £295 million—50 per cent. more than the current Government say is acceptable. The Home Secretary's words should haunt him when we vote against the settlement. We shall do so, not just to register the deep-seated concerns of the police service, but because we believe that the people of this country do not want the police service to be cut to the bone.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), the former Prime Minister, said just two afternoons ago that the Prime Minister was a prisoner of the mob mentality. The public have yet to realise the damage that the Government are doing to our police service. When they do, they will hold the Prime Minister responsible. Perhaps then Ministers may come to the House to announce a better settlement for our police.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): This has been an interesting and informative debate, although it has been slightly heated at times from the contributions of those on the Opposition Front Bench. We have heard a wide range


of contributions, giving many examples of good practice in police forces throughout the country. This is an opportunity for right hon. and hon. Members from across England and Wales to make their views known, as is right and proper. They are close to their local police force. They know what their officers are thinking and want to make those views known. I should like to respond to the questions that have been raised.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kate Hoey: Not just at the moment. Let me get some way into my speech. I do not have a lot of time.
The support for local police forces should not always be uncritical. It was interesting to hear some hon. Members recognise that perhaps the police had been insulated from the pressure that has been put on other parts of the public sector.
The figures in the report represent a fair settlement for the police in 1999–2000—fair but challenging. We have heard about the financial pressures that individual police authorities are facing. I fully accept that some authorities have fared better than others. That is one of the effects of the funding formula that we inherited from the Conservatives. We continue to refine it and it now commands general acceptance in the police service. It is based on the relative needs of forces, so those faring less well can be reassured that a disappointing settlement in comparison with that of a neighbouring force is down to objective evidence, not the whim of Ministers.
We have allowed the formula to operate objectively without political interference or tinkering and resisted the temptation to interfere with it or override it to produce results that Ministers might find more attractive for their area. The Metropolitan police—my local force and that of my hon. Friend the Minister—will get a funding increase of 1.7 per cent. next year, which is well below the national average. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's local police in Lancashire will get a funding increase of 1.9 per cent., which is again below the average. We have been scrupulous in avoiding subjective intervention in allocations to individual police authorities.
The funding provided by central Government is not the end of the story. Forces will have more money at their disposal if they improve their performance and efficiency. Efficiency savings of 2 per cent. across total police authority spending represent about £140 million in cash terms—a significant sum by any standard. As we have heard already, the Audit Commission and Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary have pointed to areas where significant improvements can be made, including better management of sickness or medical retirements and better use of assets. Changes in the rules on capital receipts mean that, for the first time, police authorities can reinvest in capital projects all that they generate from the sale of surplus assets.
Police authorities can also consider increasing their spending a little more through the council tax. Unlike in previous years, they are not constricted by crude and universal capping limits.

Mr. Clifton-Brown: The Minister will be aware that the Gloucestershire police had one of the lowest settlements—an increase of only 1.4 per cent. Recently,

the chief constable wrote to me saying that, in real terms, that represents a cut of 4 per cent. in its budget and that making that up fully would involve an increase in the council tax precept for the police of a staggering 27 per cent. I have written to the Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has pushed the boat out too far.

Kate Hoey: If the hon. Gentleman has written to me, I certainly have not received his letter. However, only yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister met the deputy chief constable, who is quite confident that the police will be able to manage on this year's difficult but challenging settlement.
As I mentioned, there will be no capping. However, the Home Secretary expects police authorities to balance the needs of the force for extra resources with the interests of local council tax payers and set budgets that are responsible, prudent and do not impose excessive increases in council tax. The Home Secretary has asked me to point out that we shall be monitoring the position closely.
Another innovation for next year is the link between the settlement and our commitment to improving police efficiency. We have set all police forces a target of 2 per cent. efficiency gains year on year. They will then be able to plough the money back into front-line policing. Hon. Members should understand that, for the first time, there is a real incentive to meet this modest target.

Mr. Allan: The Minister gave us an assurance that in setting the budget using the formula, no account was taken of the political make-up of a particular area. Can she give us the same assurance in respect of the capping process—that the political complexion of an area will not affect the Government's consideration of whether or not to lift a cap?

Kate Hoey: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should even think that there is any political consideration in the capping formula.
I shall now respond to some of the specific points that were raised in the debate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies)—I have been practising pronouncing the name of his constituency, but I am not sure whether I have got it right—talked about his local police force in Dyfed Powys. He made an interesting speech, but he did not mention that his local police force has the lowest crime rate in the country and should be congratulated. It also has the highest percentage of crimes detected, and that is an excellent achievement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, the previous Home Office Minister, listened to the concerns of the four Welsh forces and found additional money for them. As a result, the Dyfed-Powys force will receive an increase of 1.2 per cent. instead of 0.8 per cent. and that is a positive step. My right hon. Friend also asked about the 2 per cent. efficiency target. If his force were to achieve that target, it would have an extra £1 million to reinvest.
The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) gave us a sincere presentation of the particular difficulties affecting Bedfordshire that he has discussed with my hon Friend the Minister of State. Bedfordshire has achieved success in fighting crime, although it has


been affected by the formula. As I said, a formula means that some forces fare worse than others. However, the formula is based on population. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the extra housing that is being built in his area. The formula is population based and so there is no doubt that any increase in the population will be reflected in the allocation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) made a positive speech recognising that police forces sometimes need to be challenged. She raised questions about how the police work and whether more imaginative ways of working—and indeed the role of the police—should be examined. She saw what the Opposition did not see—that there needs to be a change in culture and we all have to work with the police to bring that about. Clearly, if there is mismanagement we shall look into it as it is a serious issue.
As she has done on many occasions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) referred to Hillsborough. I do not want to get into that now, but she asked how we measure whether police grant has been used appropriately. That is a matter for the police authority and the district auditor.
The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam) painted a grim picture of his area. I do not agree. There has been some exaggeration and I am absolutely confident that his area will respond to the settlement.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that tackling crime is not a job for the police alone. In many areas the police are already working in co-operation with local authorities and others to reduce crime. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has provided the police with new powers and opportunities. Working with the local community, they are able to focus responses and target local crime problems. The police are already doing an excellent job. The legislation means that crime can be tackled at its roots, in local communities. The police have a major part to play in that work.
The settlement provides the police service with extra resources to carry on its excellent work in tackling crime and disorder in our towns and cities. It includes efficiency targets that will enable forces to focus their resources on meeting the concerns of local people. The Audit Commission report shows that success in solving crime does not depend solely in the numbers of police officers available. Partnerships, targeted policing, better use of information technology and the efficient use of available resources all have an important part to play in improving police performance.
Both Opposition spokesmen were full of doom and gloom, particularly the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway). However, police authorities across the country do not share that view. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have no hidden agenda. Our only agenda is to tackle crime effectively. I know that the Opposition have a job to do, but I genuinely wish that they would work with us on that agenda to tackle crime and disorder because that is what the public want. The Government are confident that the police will rise to the challenge—it is a challenge—and show the public that they can deliver an effective, efficient and high-quality service. That is what we expect to happen, so we should like the House to support the settlement today.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 143.

Division No. 57]
[3.59 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Ainger, Nick
Darvill, Keith


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Dawson, Hilton


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dean, Mrs Janet


Ashton, Joe
Denham, John


Atherton, Ms Candy
Dismore, Andrew


Atkins, Charlotte
Dobbin, Jim


Austin, John
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Drew, David


Beard, Nigel
Drown, Ms Julia


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bennett, Andrew F
Efford, Clive


Benton, Joe
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Berry, Roger
Ennis, Jeff


Best, Harold
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Blackman, Liz
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Blizzard, Bob
Flint, Caroline


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Flynn, Paul


Boateng, Paul
Follett, Barbara


Borrow, David
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Galloway, George


Buck, Ms Karen
Gapes, Mike


Burden, Richard
Gardiner, Barry


Burgon, Colin
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Goggins, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cawsey, Ian
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hanson, David


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Healey, John



Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Heppell, John


Clelland, David
Hesford, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vemon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoey, Kate


Cohen, Harry
Home Robertson, John


Coleman, Iain
Hoon, Geoffrey


Colman, Tony
Hope, Phil


Connarty, Michael
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cooper, Yvette
Hoyle, Lindsay


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Humble, Mrs Joan


Corston, Ms Jean
Hurst, Alan


Cousins, Jim
Hutton, John


Cranston, Ross
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cummings, John
Illsley, Eric


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jenkins, Brian






Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Pond, Chris


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pope, Greg



Pound, Stephen


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Primarolo, Dawn


Kemp, Fraser
Prosser, Gwyn


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Quinn, Lawrie


Khabra, Piara S
Radice, Giles


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rammell, Bill


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Rapson, Syd


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Raynsford, Nick


Kingham, Ms Tess
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rooker, Jeff


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rooney, Terry


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Laxton, Bob
Rowlands, Ted


Lepper, David
Ryan, Ms Joan


Leslie, Christopher
Salter, Martin


Levitt, Tom
Sawford, Phil


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Shaw, Jonathan


Linton, Martin
Sheerman, Barry


Livingstone, Ken
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lock, David
Singh, Marsha


Love, Andrew
Skinner, Dennis


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McDonagh, Siobhain



McDonnell, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McFall, John
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Snape, Peter


McIsaac, Shona
Soley, Clive


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mackinlay, Andrew
Steinberg, Gerry


McNulty, Tony
Stevenson, George


MacShane, Denis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mactaggart, Fiona
Stoate, Dr Howard


McWalter, Tony
Stringer, Graham


McWilliam, John
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mallaber, Judy
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter



Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Touhig, Don


Martlew, Eric
Trickett, Jon


Maxton, John
Truswell, Paul


Meale, Alan
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Milburn, Alan
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Miller, Andrew
Vaz, Keith


Moffatt, Laura
Vis, Dr Rudi


Moran, Ms Margaret
Walley, Ms Joan


Morley, Elliot
Ward, Ms Claire


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Wareing, Robert N


Mountford, Kali
Watts, David


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
White, Brian


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Wicks, Malcolm


Norris, Dan
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Wills, Michael


Olner, Bill
Winnick, David


O'Neill, Martin
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Wise, Audrey


Palmer, Dr Nick
Worthington, Tony


Pearson, Ian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Perham, Ms Linda
Wyatt, Derek


Pickthall, Colin



Pike, Peter L
Tellers for the Ayes:


Plaskitt, James
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Pollard, Kerry
Mr. David Jamieson.





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Allan, Richard
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Amess, David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Lansley, Andrew


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Leigh, Edward


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Letwin, Oliver


Baldry, Tony
Lidington, David


Ballard, Jackie
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Livsey, Richard


Bercow, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Loughton, Tim


Blunt, Crispin
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Boswell, Tim
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Brady, Graham
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Brake, Tom
McLoughlin, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Madel, Sir David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Browning, Mrs Angela
Maples, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Mates, Michael


Burnett, John
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Burns, Simon
May, Mrs Theresa


Burstow, Paul
Moss, Malcolm


Butterfill, John
Norman, Archie


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Oaten, Mark



Öpik, Lembit


Chope, Christopher
Ottaway, Richard


Clappison, James
Page, Richard


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Paice, James


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Paterson, Owen


Collins, Tim
Pickles, Eric


Colvin, Michael
Prior, David


Cotter, Brian
Randall, John


Curry, Rt Hon David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Rendel, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Robathan, Andrew


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Duncan, Alan
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Evans, Nigel
St Aubyn, Nick


Faber, David
Sanders, Adrian


Fabricant, Michael
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Fallon, Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Fearn, Ronnie
Spicer, Sir Michael


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Spring, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Fox, Dr Liam
Steen, Anthony


Fraser, Christopher
Streeter, Gary


Gale, Roger
Swayne, Desmond


Garnier, Edward
Syms, Robert


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Gorrie, Donald
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Gray, James
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Green, Damian
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Greenway, John
Townend, John


Grieve, Dominic
Trend, Michael


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Tyler, Paul


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Viggers, Peter


Hammond, Philip
Walter, Robert


Harris, Dr Evan
Wardle, Charles


Harvey, Nick
Waterson, Nigel


Hawkins, Nick
Webb, Steve


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Whittingdale, John


Horam, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Wilkinson, John


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Willetts, David


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Willis, Phil


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)



Jenkin, Bernard
Tellers for the Noes:


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Key, Robert
Mr. Stephen Day.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Police Grant Report (England and Wales) 1999–2000 (HC 179), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Local Government Finance

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I beg to move,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999–2000 (HC 143), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following motions:
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 37) (HC 144), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98: Amending Report 1999 (HC 145), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
I should remind the House that Madam Speaker has ruled that there will be a limit of 10 minutes on Back-Bench speeches.

Mr. Prescott: As this is to be a shorter debate than last year's, and as many hon. Members will wish to take part, I shall keep my remarks as brief as possible.
This year's settlement is the most generous for seven years, so it should not be too controversial—although I recognise that the settlement is never, ever enough. The House will recall that on 2 December, I set out my local government finance settlement proposals for England in 1999–2000. They included: the total amount of local authority spending to which the Government are prepared to contribute, known as total standard spending, which will increase from £48 billion to more than £50.5 billion, which is a rise of £2.6 billion, or 5.5 per cent.; the amount of Government grant support, which increases from £37.4 billion in 1998–99 to £39.5 billion; and some changes to standard spending assessments—the formulae used to distribute grant.
Two of the reports before the House contain my decisions following formal consultation on those proposals. The third report corrects an error made by the previous Government in 1996. I should like to spell out some facts about the settlement for 1999–2000.
There is more than £1.4 billion more for education, following the £835 million extra provided last year, and more than £500 million more for social services. Total standard spending is up by £2.6 billion—5.5 per cent., as I have said—compared with last year. Let us remind ourselves of the increases since the council tax came into being—just 0.9 per cent. in 1995–96, and 2.5 per cent. in 1997–98.
The average for the years under the previous Government was only 2.4 per cent. This year's increase is more than twice the average for all the years of the previous Administration.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: I welcome what my right hon. Friend has done, but is he aware of representations by Oldham metropolitan borough, which feels that the changes made do not deal with all the anomalies in the area cost adjustment? The major problem is that SSAs, which were well worked out in the past, will be fixed for three years, creating anomalies during that


period. I know that my right hon. Friend is investigating how he can improve matters, but is there no chance of making changes during that three-year period?

Mr. Prescott: My right hon. Friend will recall that I said in a previous debate that one of the three standard assessments that we are dealing with had to do with children's services. We have made a judgment on that and can address ourselves to it. The others deal with education and the area adjustments to which he has referred. It is difficult to reach agreement there, and I shall return to the point later. Something like 41 formulae apply, and quite radical changes and consequences flow. We have decided not to make a decision at the moment, but to continue discussions throughout the three years.
The next round of public expenditure commitments will start early in that period, and discussions on standard spending assessment will take place during that process, so we shall have had to reach some decision. I understand my right hon. Friend's concern, but when he hears hon. Members talking about the effects of the changes we have made to just one area, he will appreciate the difficulties that we must take into account if we want to reach a proper consensus.

Sir Paul Beresford: Many hon. Members on both sides are concerned about distribution. Would the Secretary of State comment on the apparent change in definition of SSAs contained in paragraph 3.2 of "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999/2000"?

Mr. Prescott: I shall come to the SSAs shortly if the hon. Gentleman will wait a little.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Secretary of State confirm whether what was said by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) was correct? Is the Secretary of State ruling out any change in the area cost adjustment over the next three years? Is that the implication of his reply to the right hon. Gentleman's question?

Mr. Prescott: Let me be clear about that. We shall continue discussions, and I shall report back to the House each year on settlements. The hon. Gentleman should wait to see how far we get in those discussions. We have settled on the children's support schemes, and I shall deal with that point in a few moments. Every year, I shall come to the House to inform hon. Members on how far we have gone, and on how much further we may be able to progress.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: If these matters are so difficult—especially the area cost adjustment—why did the Prime Minister promise three days before the general election that he would change the area cost adjustment for 1998–99? He failed to do so, and now he is trying to set in stone that it should not change for a further three years.

Mr. Prescott: I do not think that the Prime Minister said exactly that. [HON. MEMBERS: "He did."] No, he did not. I do not want to get into a dispute over that. We intend, over our five-year period in Government, to deal with all the commitments in our manifesto, and even with

the statements made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Nearly two thirds of our manifesto commitments are already under way, which shows how good the Government's record is. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about trains?"] I do not think that trains can be blamed on me after the Conservative privatisation. The Tories will blame everyone, having decided that marriage is back in fashion and God knows what else they did not believe before.
Let me repeat what I said before I was rudely interrupted. There is more than £1.4 billion more for education, following the £835 million extra provided last year, and more than £500 million more for social services. Total standard spending is up by £2.6 billion—5.5 per cent.—compared with last year. Let us remind ourselves of how that compares with the 2.4 per cent. increase under the previous Administration. Twice as much is being made available in the most generous settlement given to local authorities for seven years. I see no one contesting that, although the opportunity is there for anyone who wants to jump in.

Mr. Crispin Blunt: rose—

Mr. Prescott: Thank you.

Mr. Blunt: The borough of Reigate and Banstead has had a real cut in its settlement because moneys have been raided out of flood defences. How does that fact square with the imposition of 2,600 homes on the borough in an area that is liable to flood? When it floods, will the Secretary of State return money to the borough to make up for its having been robbed from it now?

Mr. Prescott: The previous Administration held back money, never giving any for flood relief. They offered every reason as to why they could not pay out for that.

Mr. Blunt: indicated dissent.

Mr. Prescott: I do not want to argue about flood relief, which is just one part of expenditure. The hon. Gentleman's authority, like all the others, will receive more than it did last year. That is a basic fact. Does he disagree with it?

Mr. Blunt: indicated assent.

Mr. Prescott: Have a look at the figures and then apologise.

Mr. Richard Allan: rose—

Mr. Prescott: I must get on. There is limited time for the debate. I am trying to give way, but I should like to continue.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I apologise for intervening because I know that my right hon. Friend wants to make a short speech. Indeed, I wish to speak myself. I accept what he says, but for local authorities such as Leicester, the social services changes mean a reduction in revenue support of nearly £2.7 million. Does he accept that while we are still getting a real-terms


increase, it is substantially below the national average? Can he offer any hope over the next 12 months that that imbalance will be addressed?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend has a fair point about what came out of the changes in standard spending assessment; it is one of the difficulties, and I shall come to it. We have listened to the arguments of hon. Members and found an extra £30 million to try to deal with that.
The settlement is the most generous since the introduction of council tax.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No. I must go on.
Most councils will do well out of this year's settlement, and some very well. The Government will put in £2 billion more in grant. That means council taxes need bear only a fair share of the spending increase. I recognise that while all education authorities will get more money, some will be hard pressed because of the SSA changes. As I explained in a written answer on 1 February, I have found extra money to help the most hard-pressed authorities with education and social service responsibilities. No authority will lose in cash terms.

Mr. David Curry: The right hon. Gentleman's reply on 1 February says that the additional grant is in respect of losses on the children's services element of the spending assessment. He then said that he would distribute a grant relating to total SSA. As a result, a county such as North Yorkshire will lose £3 million in cash on social services, largely because of a children's indicator, but get nothing at all from the £30 million. There is a dislocation between the reason for the money and its distribution.

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Gentleman knows the difficulties of damping in dealing with SSA. The previous Administration did little to help on that. [Interruption.] I am reminded that they did nothing. I was trying to be charitable because the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) understands the subject more than most of us. There are great difficulties.
I now come to the SSA and the consequential effects mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall). We cannot satisfy everyone when we begin to make changes. All we can hope for is fair criteria for distributing the money. That is what governed us on the matter.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon used to go through the yearly discussions with local authorities about the rate support grant and got a difficult ride at some meetings. That did not happen this year. It was quite boring because the authorities thought that the settlement was generous. The right hon. Gentleman's well-known reply was, "We got stuffed by the Treasury." I was not in that situation. We have done a lot better because our Treasury listened to our arguments.
We have announced the totals of SSAs for the next three years. Councils must recognise—I am sure that they do—that they should not expect to be able to deal with

the problems of 18 years in one year. This three-year settlement, which the Local Government Association called for, means that councils can plan ahead now that they know there is a three-year period. They should plan for service improvements and for reasonable—not excessive—council tax increases.
We have considered representations about the SSA formula and there were three big issues about which many hon. Members were concerned. They were children's social services, where we proposed changes, additional education need, and the area cost adjustment, for both of which we propose no change. The basic principle of my proposals is to make the grant distribution fairer.
For both additional educational need and the area cost adjustment, we had many reform proposals to choose from. For example, we had 21 detailed options on area cost adjustment, but there was no clear front runner on merit or in terms of support from local government. It would not have been right to take decisions on the area cost adjustment and additional education needs now when it was clear that there were unresolved issues raised by local authorities which needed further work. If there is one area in which we should seek consensus, it is this because it affects so many local authorities and people.
The most significant change that I propose is to adjust the way in which we deal with children's social services. The change is based on extensive research and three years' discussion with local government. Even this change is not without controversy. The new formula for children's social services would not take into account ethnic minority populations. Some questioned whether that was fair and those voices have been heard in the Chamber. It is a matter that deserves the most careful consideration. However, detailed research showed that indicators of deprivation that can apply to all parts of the community are better than those that relate only to ethnic minorities. I have, therefore, confirmed that proposal.
I also confirmed the other proposals that I made on SSA on my 2 December statement to the House. When the SSA formula changes, there are winners and losers. I do not pretend that it is easy for the councils that lose, but I can at least say two things. First, the Government have not and would not adjust the SSA figures to favour councils because of their political leadership. Secondly, we have listened to the authorities that would lose most from their grants because of the change. Their views were expressed in the debate when I made my first announcement on the revenue support grant. I have, therefore, put £30 million more into the settlement and guarantee that all education and social service authorities will receive at least 1.5 per cent. more in grant in 1999–2000 than they did this year. That is an increase. It is an improvement on my original proposal to ensure that no authority loses grant. A little more than £2 million will have to be taken from the revenue support grant to help fund this.
Under the new grant, Brent, for example, will receive £2.4 million more than I proposed in December. West Sussex and Leicester will each get £1.7 million more. Over the next three years, we shall work jointly with local government on a thorough review of revenue grant distribution. We have set ourselves the task of looking for


a simpler, more stable, more robust, fairer system. We want to examine the fundamentals of the financial system governing local authorities.

Mr. Allan: The Deputy Prime Minister said that he would be utterly fair and not consider the politics of local councillors. He knows that people in places such as Sheffield felt disadvantaged by political bias under the previous Government. Will he make it absolutely clear that no community will ever lose out because of the local council it elects, and will he be utterly scrupulous in that respect?

Mr. Prescott: I am proposing criteria by which people can judge that. The aim of SSAs is to achieve fairness. If we are not fair and choose to make political decisions that favour one political party, it will be clear so that everyone can make that judgment. Such conduct is not unknown. Many local authority settlements under the previous Administration were geared to their county areas. The trouble is most of them are now Labour.

Mr. James Gray: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the public claim of Ruth Coleman, the Liberal Democrat leader of North Wilshire district council, that she received a personal letter from him saying that the comparatively generous settlement for North Wiltshire was a direct result of her bringing in new council policies? Did he write to her saying that he was benefiting North Wiltshire because the Liberal Democrats control it?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Interventions should be brief, not mini-speeches. I do not appeal to hon. Members to make brief interventions; I instruct them to.

Mr. Prescott: 1 have received many thousands of letters, but I assure the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) that I have not sent or signed any letter that would give any such political favour. The Liberals have a tendency to say such things.
We considered representations on our proposals for council tax benefit and subsidy limitation. I have concluded that it is right to maintain the simple principle that led us to adopt the policy. Local authorities should not expect to be able to pass all the costs of their tax decisions back to central Government. If councils increase their council taxes above the guidelines, they will have to contribute to the benefit costs.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: This morning, we had a delegation from Labour-controlled Northumberland county council, which is in a bit of difficulty with the new SSAs. It would like a fairer system. I know that my right hon. Friend will consider that over three years. It was talking about a figure of 10 per cent., and it is a Labour-controlled authority.

Mr. Prescott: Northumberland has received a 5.5 per cent. increase—which is twice as much as it has received before. That is at least a step towards social justice, and we shall continue to review the finances.
We have considered representations on our proposals for council tax benefit subsidy limitation. However, I have concluded that it is right to maintain the simple principle that led us to adopt this measure. Local authorities should not expect to be able to pass on all the costs of their tax decisions to central Government.

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose—

Mr. Prescott: If councils increase—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) must behave himself.

Mr. Prescott: To be honest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he is the only person who is getting excited about this.
If councils increase council taxes above the guideline, they will contribute to the benefit costs. I was not persuaded that it would be right to limit the contributions any further than the taper that I have proposed or to exempt authorities in particular situations. We will protect authorities that have a higher than average proportion of council tax met by benefit, and they will be treated as though they had an average proportion. That strikes a balance that ensures that the poorest authorities are not treated unfairly.
If we announced capping limits in advance, we would lose the point of abolishing crude capping. Each authority must reach a sensible conclusion in the light of local circumstances. I make no secret of my determination to act if authorities behave unreasonably. They should bear in mind that the Government are contributing their fair share—some £39.5 billion; £2 billion more than this year—to support the local expenditure of £50.6 billion.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and I am very impressed by his remarks about fairness. I am sure that he believes absolutely in democracy. In that case, why does he not simply remove the cap and allow local people to decide the level of taxes in their area?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Lady—who, even allowing for modern political movements, is not likely ever to sit on this Bench—must understand that we have to strike a balance between local and national interests. Governments are responsible for raising taxes, setting out public expenditure programmes and taking decisions about the grants that local authorities will receive. Fifty billion pounds is a substantial amount under any circumstances.
We must make a judgment, and we believe that that is a fair amount of money. It is twice as much as previous settlements and is sufficient to meet the fair provision of services. At the end of the day, democracy will count in local authority areas. Councillors must argue their case with the people, who will either support or reject them. As Labour controls more councils than ever before—it is a record number for any political party—we must be on the right track.

Mr. Brian White: On the point about local communities supporting council tax levels that are higher than the Government recommend, is my right hon. Friend aware that my authority is


conducting a referendum on that issue? If the people vote for higher local council tax, will the Government recognise the validity of that result?

Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend must be aware that we are proposing legislation that will give such powers to local authorities. We would then take that provision into account. However, I am bound to say that that is not the position this year as we are operating under the law as it presently stands. If an authority says that it wants to do A, B or C, we will take its wishes into account. However, its decisions are not binding upon us. Ultimately, we are bound by the national interest, what we believe to be a fair amount of money for local authorities and what is fair for council tax payers. That is a proper judgment to make, and that is our approach.
I was struck by the time that was spent on formal consultation about the settlement. There has been considerable consultation, and it cannot be right to consume so much of the time of councillors and officers. Ministers have had 72 meetings, each involving several local members and officers—and I am sure that Opposition Members are familiar with the pain of constant meetings. Officers travel to London and often lose a whole day. I do not expect any significant changes to the way in which the grant is distributed next year. As a general rule, I shall expect written representations, which will be considered carefully—particularly when there appear to be errors in our provisional calculations. We shall of course continue to meet the local authority associations.
The next three years will offer stable grants, the opportunity to plan with greater flexibility, and the chance to reinvest efficiency savings and to have a fundamental look at the fairness and clarity of the grant system. We have listened to the representations and we have made an extra £30 million available in order to protect those authorities most affected by change. Authorities will receive an average increase in support of 5.5 per cent. All education authorities will receive at least 1.5 per cent. more in grant and no council will receive less grant next year than it received this year. This is the best settlement for seven years, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Gillian Shephard: When introducing last year's local government finance settlement in December 1997, the Secretary of State took the opportunity of making several promises regarding his Government's intentions for local government. Among other things, he claimed that he would achieve a prospect of fairness, increased local discretion allied to greater local accountability, the ending of crude and universal capping, and the restoration of new and more positive relations between central and local government. Has the right hon. Gentleman really just announced his intention to see no delegations next year? Maybe he thinks that, if he does not see people, it will contribute to new and more positive relations between him and local government.

Mr. Robert Jackson: As to Labour's promises, Oxfordshire now faces three years of substantial reductions in services and increased council tax. Does my

right hon. Friend agree that those people who voted Labour and Liberal at the last general election were sold a false prospectus?

Mrs. Shephard: I agree with my hon. Friend. There are many disappointed groups and areas around the country not only as a result of last year's settlement but because of the prospect of this year's settlement.

Mr. Ian Bruce: The Deputy Prime Minister has demonstrated that he is getting wiser as the years go by. He clearly would not give way to me because he knew that the grant situation in Dorset is so appalling that he could not possibly continue with his speech. He has decided—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) is not responsible for the Secretary of State's speech. I am sure that she cannot reply to that intervention.

Mrs. Shephard: My hon. Friend makes his point very eloquently. We know about the situation in Dorset and in the south of England generally. We shall expect the Minister for Local Government and Housing to reply to those points in detail in her winding-up speech.
We know what last year's settlement delivered. It delivered a record 8.6 per cent. increase in council tax across the board—so much for the right hon. Gentleman's commitment to best value. It achieved a political switch of £50 million away from London authorities and £100 million away from shire areas to the right hon. Gentleman's friends in the north—so much for the prospect of fairness and so much for local discretion allied with local accountability.

Dr. George Turner: I thank the right hon. Lady for her kindness in giving way. Before she continues, does she not wish to speak on behalf of the people of Norfolk—whom she and I represent—and thank the Government for the best settlement not only in seven years but in 20? Instead of facing the problems that I faced as chair of education when we could not meet the teachers' pay settlement—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call Mrs. Shephard.

Mrs. Shephard: Why does the Secretary of State not give the hon. Gentleman a job—it would spare us this sort of thing? I remind the hon. Gentleman that last year Norfolk got the worst settlement in its entire history, and that it is not under a Conservative Administration that Norfolk has had to face the closure of all its youth centres and the sale of all its homes for the elderly.
In the Deputy Prime Minister's statement to the House on 2 December 1998 on this year's revenue support grant settlement, he could—if he had meant what he said the year before—have put right the damage last year's settlement did, but he chose not do so. For all his hype, today's settlement perpetuates the switch of funds away


from rural areas and from London, and demonstrates a new trend of a clear disadvantage in funding terms for authorities and their communities in the south of England.

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Lady told the House that last year's settlement was worse than any under a Tory Administration. In fact, in 1995–96, under a Tory Government, the increase was 0.4 per cent.

Mrs. Shephard: I also said that it was not under a Conservative Administration that Norfolk had to face the loss of all its youth centres and all its homes for the elderly. That happened under a Labour Government and a Lib-Lab council.
This settlement, despite all the right hon. Gentleman's huffing and puffing, will result in council tax rises across the board. He has said little about that. I wonder whether he would like to comment on the fact that the Treasury's assumptions in its pre-Budget report of 3 November 1998 were for a council tax rise of 7.7 per cent., which appears curiously at variance with his predictions.

Mr. Prescott: The right hon. Lady should look up the facts of the case. If she looks carefully, she will see that the Red Book refers to England, Scotland and Wales, whereas our proposal refers only to England. As so often, she is not comparing like with like.

Mrs. Shephard: I can go on. The right hon. Gentleman's view, expressed on 2 December last year, that the settlement was
the best deal for years for local people"—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 886.]
is not a view shared by local people throughout the country. Local people in Norfolk face a council tax rise of four times the rate of inflation. Local people in Buckinghamshire will have to pay a council tax rise of more than 9 per cent. Local people in Cambridgeshire face both a £12 million shortfall and the Prime Minister's broken promise about their future status in respect of the area cost adjustment. Local people in Worcestershire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, Essex, Kent, West Sussex and Dorset see that the Government's methodology has robbed them of millions, which will inevitably lead to council tax rises in double figures, according to the Local Government Chronicle.

Mr. Tom King: I cannot imagine why my right hon. Friend has excluded Somerset from that litany. I have just come downstairs from dealing with letters of despair from many head teachers in Somerset, who, as a result of the settlement, face the prospect of teacher redundancies and serious problems for their schools.

Mrs. Shephard: It is perhaps because of such views—the views of real people—that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced his intention not to see any delegations next year.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Barnsley council has this year received its highest settlement for a long time—the fifth highest settlement of any local authority this year. However, even with that 7.2 per cent. increase and assuming a 10 per cent. increase in the council tax, the authority this week faced £10.2 million worth of cuts.

Those cuts come not as a consequence of the Labour Government's settlement, but as a consequence of the previous Government's refusing, for nine years, to alter the SSA methodology. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry)—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Shephard: Could what the hon. Gentleman describes have something to do with the way in which Barnsley is run?

Mr. Michael J. Foster: The right hon. Lady mentioned that Worcestershire faced a double-digit increase in council tax. Can she tell the House what proof she has of that? If she has no proof, will she withdraw the remark? If Worcestershire delivers a council tax increase that is less than double digits, will she apologise to the House?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman's remarks have been received with a degree of incredulity by Conservative Members. When I read my list of the worst affected authorities, I made it clear that my source was the Local Government Chronicle. The Local Government Chronicle is equally concerned about the position in London, as is the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who wrote movingly in the Evening Standard of 29 January 1999:
How has it all gone so sour so quickly?
He continues:
The nightmare is that this new scheme is supposed to stay in place unchanged for the next three years.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am overexcited by the intervention from the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster). Had he been doing his duty by his constituents, he would have said that there was a great likelihood of there being a double-digit increase in the council tax in Worcestershire. Even the director of social services in the county has accepted that there is to be a 4 per cent. real-terms cut in the social services budget in this financial year.

Mrs. Shephard: rose—

Mr. Tony Baldry: Will my right hon. Friend give way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must call on the House to settle down. Hon. Members are being most unruly and there is far too much noise.

Mr. Baldry: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I do not understand why Labour Members are being so shy about the fact that the budget for Oxfordshire county council, which was tabled by the Labour group on that council, clearly shows that the Labour group wants a council tax rise in Oxfordshire of 12.5 per cent.

Mrs. Shephard: Indeed. As my hon. Friend makes clear, we know very well who runs the council in Oxfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) has caused the hon. Member for


Worcester (Mr. Foster) to stand corrected and we hope that it will be he who apologises if the council tax rise turns out as expected.
Sadly, the figures announced by the Government in December and confirmed today by the Deputy Prime Minister have set the seal on a systematic fix to benefit the Labour party's friends in the north at the expense of rural England, London and the south.

Mr. Phil Willis: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Shephard: No, I intend to make a little progress now.
Over the past two years, rural areas have lost £250 million of funding, thanks to the Government's changes to the methodology. As we have heard this afternoon, those have been set in stone and it is no good anybody asking to see the Deputy Prime Minister because he will see no one; so rural authorities are set to lose a further £300 million during the two remaining years of this Parliament.
London, too, has been hit. It has lost £140 million during the past two years and will lose a further £180 million during the next two. The hon. Member for Brent, East painted a stark picture in last Friday's Evening Standard when he wrote that Brent faced having to cut education by £2.4 million, to slash provision for old-age pensioners, the disabled and children in care, to close day centres and libraries, to end the youth service, to cut road maintenance—and so on. He pointed out that the picture would be the same in Hackney, Newham, Haringey and Lambeth.

Mr. Prescott: Why is he not here?

Mrs. Shephard: I dare say that the hon. Member is busy canvassing.
The Deputy Prime Minister has attempted to point out that that loss has been adjusted by his use of the special grant system, but as he has also pointed out, that is only transitional. His intention is that the underlying pattern of injustice should continue.
Further disturbing patterns emerge from this year's settlement. Analysis reveals that of the 25 councils that have been the least favourably treated in terms of Government grant, 20 are in the south of England. Their council tax payers have been singled out by the Government for the highest council tax increases.
It is up to Ministers to explain their motivation for those changes, which to the outside world could appear political. Whatever their motivation is, they cannot maintain—not while keeping a straight face, anyway—that the highest increases have been awarded to efficient or well run councils. Time does not permit me to give a full recital of the goings-on in corrupt Labour-controlled councils, but is it not ironic that Labour-controlled Birmingham will get the biggest increase this year? That council accumulated losses of £2.5 million from the super prix. In Birmingham, the question, "How many people does it take to change a light bulb?" gets the answer, "I don't know, but I do know that each one earns £42,000 a year."
Sheffield has done very nicely too.

Mr. David Lock: Having insulted everybody north of Watford by using the expression "friends in the north", will the right hon. Lady tell us whether she includes the people of Birmingham in that category? Does the fact that she has insulted all the people who voted for Labour councils mean that she has given up any hope of making gains for her party in May's elections?

Mrs. Shephard: I find it extraordinary that a Labour Member should think that it an insult to call someone a friend of the Labour party, but that is a problem for the hon. Gentleman.
I suppose that Rotherham council is being rewarded for the fact that its deputy leader has, apparently, been suspended following allegations that money that should have been contributed to the Forum Against Poverty went instead on hotel and prostitution bills.

Mr. David Watts: While the right hon. Lady is naming names concerning the scandalous behaviour of Labour councillors, will she take the opportunity to condemn Lady Porter, who happened to run off with millions of pounds of taxpayers' money?

Mrs. Shephard: The best ones are the old ones and that one, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is sub judice.
We have heard a great deal about education from the Deputy Prime Minister. Conservative Members have consistently welcomed the Government's investment in education, and I do so again today. However, it is ironic that after the Government have organised that investment, gift-wrapped it and kept it in the Department for Education and Employment so that it can be announced and re-announced every time the Secretary of State for Education and Employment or the Prime Minister visits a school, not only is it now unavailable to fund the teachers' pay award but it may even threaten some of the gift-wrapped schemes themselves.
As the Brent primary school head teachers' group said in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Brent education committee is having to consider not only sacking teachers and cutting school budgets but making reductions on some of the Government's flagship projects such as the national grid for learning, the numeracy strategy and the social exclusion initiative.
As Graham Lane, the chairman of the Local Government Association's education committee, said:
We all want to see teachers receiving a fair wage rise but this settlement means being forced to find an extra £70 million unless the Government fully funds the cost".
Of course, the Government could do that if some of the £1 billion put aside for restructuring pay were used to avert an unnecessary crisis, as local authority employers have suggested.
We have heard much today from the Deputy Prime Minister about the size of the settlement. We have heard rather less about the council tax rises that he expects. In fact, we have no idea how much of an increase he will tolerate, which is not much comfort for council tax payers throughout the country. Capping is a system with faults—no one denies that. It is no substitute for the clarity and


accountability that could be achieved by a thoroughgoing reform of local government, giving councils financial accountability.
However, by introducing a hide-and-seek approach to local government finance, the Government have, instead of tackling the weaknesses of capping, removed its strengths and put nothing in their place. They have taken decisions out of the public eye. Their object is not to expose high-spending authorities to the control of accountable local democracy but to augment the power of the centre.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does my right hon. Friend agree that local authority leaders of all parties will be most concerned about the Deputy Prime Minister's refusal to see any delegation next year? Is not that a negation of democracy and an indication that he wants to entrench for ever the favouring of Labour councils outside shire counties? Is not that a complete refusal to do his job?

Mrs. Shephard: I hope that, by the time the Minister for Local Government and Housing concludes the debate, she will have put right the impression that the Deputy Prime Minister may regret having created.
The Deputy Prime Minister's proposals for council tax benefit subsidy compound the problem that he is creating. [Interruption.] The Minister for Local Government and Housing seems to want to make her contribution now. Perhaps, when she concludes the debate, she will explain why the Government have taken no notice whatever in their consultation of the views of the Local Government Association on the changes to subsidy arrangements.
The LGA has opposed the changes, and we agree with it. It has done so because they will impact unfairly on different parts of the country, with the result that council tax payers in the poorest areas will be hit harder than those in better-off areas. In other words, the nearly poor will pay for the really poor. The LGA believes that the Government should meet the cost of welfare benefits, not local authorities or council tax payers. It believes that the scheme is very complex—at least in that it agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister—and that the guidelines seek to reimpose the very capping that the Government said in opposition they wished to end. The LGA opposes the scheme because, perhaps most ludicrously, it will hit authorities that spend below their SSAs—23 such authorities, including eight in London, which is another hit on London.
The Deputy Prime Minister wants the country to believe that this settlement is the best deal for years. Although he may claim to have increased the global amount, he has done so in a way that is unfair, arbitrary and open to political manipulation. It deepens the divide between country and town, disadvantages London and the south of England, and adds nothing to the clarity and accountability in local government that the right hon. Gentleman never tires of telling us he seeks. For those reasons, we shall oppose motion No. 2.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Ministers on keeping the election promise to local government and on providing this financial settlement. It is the best that has been offered to local government for many years,

and is fully appreciated. Due to the time limit on speeches, I shall address my remarks to the single issue of the council tax benefit limitation scheme. I ask my right hon. Friend to give further thought to the issue.
I remind the House of the injury sustained by local government over 18 years of Tory rule—18 years of constant attack by Conservative Ministers cutting grants and resources, which in turn meant cutting services and, year on year, increasing council tax. The Tories used the rate support grant formula to award increases in grants to a few Tory councils—but they cut grants to many Labour-controlled and other councils, which now form the Special Interest Group of Municipal Authorities—SIGOMA—of which my authority, Wakefield, is a member.
Cuts in grants meant council tax increases to help to sustain services—essential services in many areas. As a result, local government aggregate spending rose to £2 billion higher than the standard spending assessment. That disparity still applies. It is one of the anomalies that local authorities have to face. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There are too many conversations taking place in the Chamber. That is unfair to the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House.

Mr. O'Brien: I have raised the matter previously. An analysis should be conducted of the aggregate spending and the standard spending assessment, so that we can level the playing field for local government.
I draw attention to the effects of the Conservatives' policies on local government, which have resulted in councils throughout the country being poorer in resources, still being classed as poor councils, and having a substantial number of low-value properties and a high percentage of people claiming benefit. That is the situation in many parts of the north of England, particularly in the mining communities. Many authorities in SIGOMA have an estimated average of more than 20 per cent. of their total council tax income coming from benefit. As a result of social inequalities, those benefit claimants are the very people who require more services.
If a council in the poorer group of local authorities tried to increase its council tax over its budget requirements to sustain services, the application of the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme would be devastating, because of the clawback of the rate support grant.
The council tax benefit is payable to help people who cannot afford to pay their council tax. It is a social benefit and, I believe, it should be the responsibility of the Government to meet the cost. Such direct welfare costs should not be a charge on the resources of local authorities. I emphasise that I am speaking of the poorer council group in local government.
I appeal to my right hon. Friend to look again at capping and to review his decision on the procedures for capping. I also ask for more time for all of us to consider the implications of the Government's proposal. As it is not yet statute, more thought should be given to it. I ask for the introduction of the council tax benefit subsidy scheme to be deferred. Because of its complexity, we need more time to analyse it. Amendments have been suggested for my right hon. Friend to consider. Perhaps he would be willing to meet Back-Bench Members so that we could offer our points of view before the final decisions are made.
I ask for a review of the scheme to localise part of the cost of council tax benefit subsidy. If the proposal were implemented in its current form, it would hit the poorest areas hardest. It is the responsibility of Government, not of local authorities, to meet the cost of welfare benefits. Help given to poor people with their council tax payments is a social benefit.
The guideline increases are widely seen as a direct substitute for crude and universal capping. I supported my right hon. Friend and the policy of the Labour party to abolish the crude capping procedure. As we do not have all the necessary information, we need more time to consider and discuss the Government's proposal.
The capping scheme can apply to local authorities below the SSA. That is a further anomaly that we should consider. The scheme will also obscure the public's understanding of council tax increases. I support the efforts of my right hon. Friend and his Ministers to improve relationships within our communities to generate more interest in local government.
To defer the council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme would demonstrate my right hon. Friend's fairness. A deferment for a minimum of 12 months would give hon. Members with an interest in local government the opportunity to analyse the system. Again, I reiterate my request for an opportunity to discuss the matter with Ministers.
The application of the rate support grant is widely welcomed, particularly in education and social services. Members of SIGOMA have, on more than one occasion, thanked Ministers for the settlement, which is far in excess of what local government ever received in a single year under the Tories. Because of that background, I hope that we will have an opportunity to discuss the matter so that my right hon. Friend's reputation for fairness remains unspoilt.

Mr. David Curry: My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) have asked to be associated with the remarks that I shall make about North Yorkshire.
I am interested in the Government's recently enunciated concept of open government, which means that they will not meet delegations. I hope that does not have too much of an impact on the January sales in London next year.
Two elements are particularly disappointing. The area cost adjustment is a difficult area, but the Labour Opposition did not give the previous Tory Government the impression that it was an insoluble problem. They said they would crack it pretty quickly. It is difficult and there is a distortion, and the trouble with stability for three years is that those who get the money are pleased with the stability, while those who wish that they had it are displeased with the stability.
I am more concerned about the Government's failure to address additional educational needs. That indicator is now out of date. Too much weight is given to ethnicity. There is no perfect correlation between ethnicity and educational underachievement. A significant amount of educational underachievement in, for example, London,

is to be found in disadvantaged white families. It should be possible to move away from that rather mechanistic formula and to target resources where there is a clear need.

Ms Oona King: In my constituency of Tower Hamlets, 102 languages are spoken in the classrooms, and about two thirds of children have parents who do not speak a second language. That has to affect their chances.

Mr. Curry: My point is that, at the moment, we have a mechanical indicator. Ethnicity plays a heavy part throughout the school scale. I am looking for an indicator which is more sensitive to the identification of real problems in education and which moves away from that rather mechanistic background. I am not predisposed to say that we should give less money to the hon. Lady's constituents or to those of another hon. Member. I want to reflect need more effectively. That is what is important.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) made some sensible remarks about the council tax benefit schemes. I hope that the Secretary of State has listened to them, and I endorse entirely the points that the hon. Gentleman made about the need to look at the schemes much more carefully before they are introduced.
I want to address the particular situation in North Yorkshire, and, first of all, the fiction that there has been a real increase in resources in education. I say that having seen the letter from the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—the usual threatening letter—saying, "This money has all got to go to education." There is a dangerous tendency: more and more, the Government want to hypothecate expenditure to individual services.
Secondly, North Yorkshire has taken a cash hit of £3.1 million on social services. The Secretary of State unveiled £30 million extra at the beginning of the week and I immediately rang North Yorkshire with the glad tidings that that was supposed to compensate local authorities that had taken a hit on social services, but the distribution is not related to the hit on social services. It is related to the overall position on standard spending assessments.
That means that there is a perverse outcome. North Yorkshire has taken a bigger hit than West Sussex, for example, but West Sussex comes out with an extra £2 million while North Yorkshire has nothing. Wandsworth has been given £6 million; Westminster, which has clearly been rehabilitated in the Government's sights, has been given £4 million; and Brent has been given £2.4 million. North Yorkshire, which has taken that severe hit, has been given no additional resources at all.
Social services are in a serious position, and—

Mr. Willis: rose—

Mr. Adrian Sanders: rose—

Mr. Curry: I will not give way, because of the time limit. I am sorry about that. The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will agree that, because of way that social services are framed in North Yorkshire, and because of the number of homes in Harrogate and Scarborough, we have suffered particular difficulty. The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) was in the Chamber, but is here no longer.
The education SSA has gone up by nearly £13 million. The county council will make sure that all that money goes to education, but we must look at what comes out of it, if we are to make a sensible assessment. We must take into account the increase in school pupil numbers, the overhang of last year's teachers' pay settlement and this year's pay settlement. The county budgeted for 3.5 per cent., but, because of the particular increase for primary school head teachers—the necessity for which I accept—and because we have 327 primary schools in North Yorkshire, that settlement has been pushed up to almost 4 per cent.
The standards fund, which used to be called GEST—grant for education support and training—and which met the requirements for special educational needs also has to be taken into account. Even if all that money goes to schools, there will be a 1.5 per cent. cut in each school budget. That is under a scheme that the Government keep telling us represents the priority "education, education, education". [Interruption.] There is no point in the Minister for Local Government and Housing muttering from a sedentary position. The fact is that that is a real cut for education in North Yorkshire. She blathers about this matter, as the Government do about so many other things.
In social services, all the voluntary organisations are facing cuts. I could wave the bleeding stumps around the Chamber, as Labour Members used to do when the positions were reversed, and I could throw at the Minister a sheaf of letters from voluntary organisations complaining about the cuts. Voluntary organisations are indispensable to delivering social services—they are not delivered only by the county council. The council depends enormously on the good will and co-operation of voluntary organisations to make sure that services work in practice.
The county will try to bail people out by lending £1 million from the reserves, but it has also taken a hit on the landfill tax and the withdrawal of tax relief on investment dividends will cost the pension funds £500,000. How do we get out of that? The Secretary of State's guideline for council tax increases works out at 4.9 per cent., but the proposal from the Conservative ruling group—which, I think, has the support of all the parties—is for a 9.6 per cent. increase.
The crisis in education and the cuts in social services mean that that increase will not even maintain the level of services, but they mean that North Yorkshire has been badly let down. Every teacher, every child, every social worker, every pupil and every elderly person needing help has been badly let down by the Government.
Is there a margin for manoeuvre? No, because North Yorkshire's working balances are the third lowest in English counties and are already close to the point at which the auditor will get extremely nervous about their low level. However, there is one thing that the Minister could do to help. The county council was awarded nearly £1 million of grant in respect of European schemes last July, but the Treasury still has not paid the money. That is a monstrous failure of administration on the part of a Government who talk constantly about the need for big companies to ensure that their debts to little companies are paid on time. The sooner the money is paid, the better.
This is a scandalous situation and a bad settlement. The Government have funked the major indicators, which will have an impact on everyone. There is a three-year

moratorium which freezes the amount, and which, apparently, will not even be subject to discussion. All that has been accompanied by the usual glib and partial presentation. The people of North Yorkshire will know who is to blame, but the taxpayers will be stuffed by a Government who are big on rhetoric, but miserably threadbare when it comes to any form of delivery.

Mr. Jim Marshall: I do not think that it will greatly surprise my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Local Government and Housing to learn that I cannot share all the Secretary of State's enthusiasm for this year's settlement. My hon. Friend will know from her discussions with councillors from my city of Leicester of the difficulties that the city is likely to face as a result of the settlement. She has listened, and she has been very generous to local representatives; she has not been so generous in the additional support that she has announced, but the extra £1.7 million is nevertheless welcome.
May I point out to my hon. Friend a mistake that the Deputy Prime Minister—the Secretary of State—may have made in referring to the £1.7 million which, I think, will go to Leicester as additional benefit? I understand that not all of it is a consequence of "damping" on the reduction in social services, but that £1.3 million arises from that, while the other £0.4 million arises from an update of data. It is not all additional relief, as the Deputy Prime Minister seemed to suggest. While I am referring to my right hon. Friend, let me add that I think he is right to take pride in the settlement that he has achieved on a global scale, although it is unfair in the particular case of Leicester. I think that the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) has a cheek to criticise this Government, who have sought to listen to local representatives, who—notwithstanding what was said from the Dispatch Box—will doubtless continue to listen to them, and who have tried to introduce at least a greater degree of transparency in decision making this year than we saw under her party's Administration.
I am one of those described by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) who used to wave sheaves of letters at him when he was replying at the Dispatch Box. We all know that, under the Conservative Administration, the revenue settlement was manipulated on purely political grounds. That is the only way to explain the benefit that was given to Westminster and other city boroughs, and the way in which inner-city areas outside London were treated.
Let me return to my basic point, which concerns Leicester. Leicester's settlement is very poor. Our standard spending assessment increase is lower than that of any other unitary or metropolitan authority, and it is the third lowest of all SSAs. It is particularly harsh, given that—the House will know this, as I mentioned it in the two preceding years—it follows hard on the heels of difficult years in 1997–98 and 1998–99. Since Leicester became a unitary authority in 1997, it has had lower SSA increases than any similar authority. Over that two-year period, Leicester has been forced to make cuts of some £20 million. To show the perversity of the Tories' crude capping system, which, unfortunately, we inherited last year, at a time of £20 million cuts, in the first year—1997–98—council tax decreased by 13 per cent., but, last year, it increased by 26 per cent.
As I have already said, this year's settlement compounds the difficulties that Leicester faces. As the Minister knows, one of the big problems is the methodology changes to the funding of children's social services. Previously, funding was determined largely by ethnicity. As Leicester has a large ethnic population, this year's change has a profound effect on its allocation. As a consequence purely of those methodology changes, it will lose £2.7 million.
The second big item is the continuing fall in school rolls; that trend has been apparent in Leicester for a number of years. In previous years, I have urged the Government to introduce a damping factor, but they have failed to do so. I hope that they will consider it in the overall review. As a consequence of falling student numbers, Leicester loses £1.7 million for education alone. We have one of the lowest increases in the SSA for education of any local authority.
The Deputy Prime Minister is absolutely correct. We are not suffering a reduction, but the increase that we are being given is hardly sufficient for the service to stand still. Just because pupil numbers are falling does not mean—

Mr. Sanders: Surely, given the fact that the head count is 18 months out of date, if a local authority has falling pupil rolls, it is quids in. It is when it has rising pupil numbers that it has the problem because there is a delay in the money reaching the schools.

Mr. Marshall: I do not really understand the point that the hon. Gentleman seeks to make, but, if he studied the relevant factors, he would know that the numbers are always 18 months to two years out of date. As a consequence, nearly all local authorities receive more educational expenditure than they would if the actual figures were known. Leicester is losing £1.7 million as a result of falling pupil rolls.
The two major changes that I have described, together with other changes that the Government have announced, mean that, this year, Leicester again faces substantial cuts: we have to seek to reduce the budget by some £5.5 million.
My understanding is that the controlling Labour group is meeting this evening to consider a package of cuts totalling about £5.5 million. 1 understand that it has pledged that that will not affect the level of front-line services, but, inevitably, with that order of cuts, non-front-line services will be severely adversely affected. It is also clear that jobs will inevitably be at risk. Assistance to the voluntary sector will be severely restricted. I understand that the amount of money that the city council gives to the Haymarket and Phoenix theatres in Leicester is likely to be reduced in the coming financial year, which will affect theatre lovers and theatre goers in Leicester. The Minister may argue that the proposed cuts do not affect front-line services, but, as a package, it will severely affect the overall services that Leicester is able provide.
To sum up, this settlement means another abysmal year for Leicester. Although I welcome the additional funding provided by the Government, I remind the House and the Minister that the extra £1.7 million is a one-off figure.

Unless the Government find some additional means of providing assistance for Leicester in the next 12 months, the situation we will face next year will be just as difficult as that we are facing this year.
I have a final plea for my hon. Friend the Minister. When my hon. Friend is looking at the specific grants, particularly for social services, I accept that she must be fair to all local authorities, but I hope that she will bend over backwards to be ultra fair to Leicester.

Mr. Paul Burstow: Local government settlements always bring out a touch of the showman—perhaps I should say the magician—in the Secretary of State. This settlement is no different from any previous settlement in that there is smoke and mirrors and plenty of spin.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow: I think I should make a little more progress before taking interventions. I will be happy to take the hon. Lady's intervention later.
This year we are told that council tax need rise by only 4.5 per cent. and that this is the most generous settlement for seven years. Neither claim should be taken at face value. Both are based on the pseudo-science of standard spending assessments and I accept the Secretary of State's comment that it is important to have a thorough review in that respect.

Mr. Sanders: Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.]

Mr. Burstow: I will give way to my hon. Friend and then to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman)

Mr. Sanders: The review is important. If we analyse the areas which have done well and those which have done badly, some common themes will emerge. It is clear that the areas that have done badly this year tend to have large numbers of elderly people in care and rising pupil numbers and, demographically, those areas tend to be in the south and south-west. Those two factors must be looked at.

Mr. Burstow: That is a good point and I hope that the Minister is listening. I hope that such points will be taken into account in the review that she is undertaking.

Mrs. Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, including the increase in SSA for social services of 11.3 per cent., this settlement means that Liverpool city council could freeze council tax very shortly if it wished to do so? Does he intend to advise the Liberal Democrats currently running Liverpool to congratulate the Labour Government on this settlement and the opportunity that it affords them?

Mr. Burstow: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention because it enables me to say that, unlike the Labour party, we do not believe in prescribing from


the centre. I shall certainly not be telling my colleagues on Liverpool city council what to do, which is in stark contrast to the Labour party's approach.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow: I should utter a few more sentences and then I will give way.
It is important to examine a little more closely the idea that there will be a low level of council tax increase and a generous settlement. Last year, the Local Government Association surveyed local authorities to get a picture of the real pressures on budgets and services, some of which we have heard from Labour Members already. The association found that local authorities need a total of £3,188 million of additional revenue just to sustain current levels of service. Taking into account the Government's generous settlement, local government is still left staring into a £1.7 million black hole.

Mr. Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman was talking about the distribution of grant and the patterns that can be seen. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 50 per cent. of all the losses sustained in children's personal social services in London have been sustained by councils with very high multi-ethnicity? That includes, Brent, Camden, Haringey, Hackney and Lambeth. Tower Hamlets is one of the exceptions because of the large number of tower blocks in the area. Over 50 per cent. of the ethnic population in those boroughs has borne 75 per cent. of all the losses in London.

Mr. Burstow: The hon. Gentleman makes a very fair point—with which the Minister will not agree, although it is borne out in our constituencies, where services are undoubtedly under severe pressure because of decisions made by the Secretary of State and his Ministers about how they will carve up the money available this year to local government.
The funding gap will be bridged in much the same way as it has been for years and years—by increased and new charges, tighter eligibility criteria, higher council tax increases and, of course, service cuts.
So how will this year's settlement be different? Crude and universal capping will remain. The Secretary of State told the House that last year would be the last year in which crude capping would operate. Closer examination of the figures reveals that there is still serious pressure on key services. Moreover, capping will not only remain but have two new added twists.
First, budget setting will become a game of Russian roulette, as the Secretary of State refuses to declare his capping principles in advance.
Secondly, council tax benefit limitation will add belt and braces to the capping system, leaving some of the poorest communities footing the bill for the poorest of their neighbours. I very much welcome the comments of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien). I hope that Ministers will meet him and other Labour Members, listen to their arguments and decide to abandon that unacceptable and dishonest policy.
When in opposition, Labour Members condemned the previous Government's introduction of the same principle, in proposals to claw back housing benefit. Indeed, 98 Labour Members signed an early-day motion condemning the previous Government on clawing back housing benefit. They should condemn also the proposed council tax benefit clawback.
The problem is that hon. Members will not be able to debate the clawback on the Floor of the House, as it will be dealt with in Committee, as secondary legislation. Legislation passed by the previous Government will therefore enable the current Government to introduce a regime of council tax benefit clawback.
We believe that there should have been a proper debate on the proposal on the Floor of the House, so that it could be amended and debated properly. Instead, the proposal will be rushed through in Committee by a few hon. Members and will not receive proper parliamentary scrutiny. The Government should be condemned for that. They should include the proposal in a local government Bill, so that we may have a proper debate on it.
Closer inspection of the figures provided by the Library reveals that the social services standard spending assessment for England will rise by 1.3 per cent., after adjusting for the current year's special transitional grant for community care. Even on the Government's own figures, that will leave a £100 million gap simply to meet inflation in social services.
A lower than inflation increase for social services will make cuts in current services inevitable. Moreover, the 1.3 per cent. increase disguises considerable variations between classes of authority. Undermining current services by underfunding makes no sense at a time when the Government are setting targets and directing a whole host of specific grants at social services to secure change and improvement. Ultimately, it will be self-defeating.
In a report to Worcestershire's social services committee, the department's director, in describing the effect of the loss of grant for community care, said:
There will now effectively be no demographic fund to cope with the increasing demands of an ageing society and the particular pressures of people with disabilities living longer and needing a proper quality of life.
He went on to say:
The likelihood therefore is new spend on new initiatives in some cases, and at the same time deep cuts in other parts of the service.
The problem is that the Government are focused on delivering a change agenda, but are blind to the need to maintain existing core services. Consequently, for example, Leicestershire faces the prospect of rationing admissions to homes for elderly people so that it might bridge the funding gap. Although such rationing is not allowed in law, authorities are working out ways of trying to achieve it. It is another savage cut that will impact on the lives of elderly people.
The same pressures apply to education. We have learnt that Ministers are saying that education funding in the settlement is sufficient to fund the pay award in full. Yet the Secretary of State for Education is writing letters left, right and centre—to governors, head teachers and


everyone else—to promise that that money will be given to schools to fund class-size reductions and all of the Government's other initiatives.

Mr. David Heath: I should like to draw to my hon. Friend's attention the remarks of the Minister for School Standards in last night's Adjournment debate. She said:
I certainly accept the argument that it"—
Somerset county council—
is receiving less SSA than he and his constituents have a right to expect"—[Official Report, 3 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 1055.]
If that is the case, why are the Government not doing something about it?

Mr. Burstow: That is one reason why we shall vote against this inadequate settlement. Last night's Adjournment debate showed that the Government accept that it is inadequate for Somerset.
Where will the £68 million needed to meet the teachers' pay award come from? It will come from the budget for classroom books and materials and from cuts to other services. My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) tells me that, according to the Government's standard spending assessment figures, Northumberland county council is expected to spend only £2,807 per pupil, compared with a figure of £4,553 for Kensington and Chelsea. There may well be differences between those areas. That is not under dispute. However, it is impossible for a council such as Northumberland to maintain the same education standards when the gap is so wide. We learn today that there is to be a 10 per cent. increase in council tax in Northumberland as a consequence of the settlement that the Government are dishing out.
I have heard recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) that North Yorkshire has lost a further £500,000 from its funding this week. On Wednesday, the council agreed to passport all £12.9 million of the education SSA through to education, but that does not meet the extra costs of the standards fund, transport and special educational needs, so it has had to write to tell the head teachers to expect a 1.5 per cent. cut in their budgets and be prepared to sack teachers and support workers.

Jackie Ballard: My hon. Friend will be aware that many councils will have large council tax rises and service cuts. Does he agree that the system of local government finance is so opaque that electors do not know whether they have an inefficient council or a mean Government?

Mr. Burstow: The pseudo-science of SSAs and the capping regime, under which councils do not know on what basis they are to be capped, mean that accountability is blurred and it is difficult for people to know whether they should write an angry letter to the Minister or try to vote their county councillor out of office.
North Yorkshire estimates that its council tax will have to rise by 9.7 per cent. Try explaining to people there why their council tax is going up by 9.7 per cent. while services are being cut and teachers are being sacked.

Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does not the hon. Gentleman's argument mean that he should

support the Government's moratorium on changes for three years while a more equitable system is worked out and agreed by all concerned?

Mr. Burstow: Part of my argument is that the settlement and the distribution methodology are still unsound. That is why we shall vote against the settlement. Stability in an unsound distribution system is not stability for those councils that will have to make cuts. Many hon. Members on both sides have clearly shown today that they face serious cuts to local services. However, Ministers say that there will be no cuts to front-line services. That is demonstrably untrue. Ministers must come out of the fantasy world of their fantasy figures and come into the real world, where cuts are being made to local services.

Mr. Gardiner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Burstow: I am sorry, but I have already given way and I must make progress.
Ministers spent settlement day last December promising that council taxes would rise by just 4.5 per cent. That estimate was based on the national control totals rather than on local reality. Ministers tell us that they have to take an interest in controlling local spending because it is part of Government expenditure. As Lord Hunt's committee on relations between central and local government said, that is a Humpty Dumpty argument. International experience shows that the control of local government's self-financed expenditure is not critical to the success of the economy. Even in the UK, self-financed expenditure has been in and out of the control totals. As long as it remains part of the control totals, Whitehall will be calling the shots rather than the town hall, at the expense of local democracy.
As hon. Members have said, this year's settlement cannot be considered in isolation. The cumulative effect of years of inadequate settlement have taken their toll. In education, for example, the settlement announced in December 1997 left a £562 million funding gap between what had been passported to education and the cash provided by the Government. That left many councils struggling to balance their books and as a result, instead of falling, primary class sizes continued to increase.
The pressure to spend all the money that had been passported to education on education increased pressures on other services, so social services were in the front line for further cuts. It has been estimated that in the current financial year each social services department faced an average of £2.1 million in cuts. Nearly two out of three authorities increased charges, raising an additional £45 million and new charges were introduced raising a further £17 million. That money came out of the pockets of people who could not afford to pay, but as they needed the care, they had no choice. No Government ever acknowledge the cumulative effect of cuts, but it needs to be addressed otherwise core services will continue to be damaged.
It is not a good settlement for local government and nor is it a generous one, as Ministers would have us believe. It leaves community care for the elderly and disabled underfunded. It leaves councils to raid school budgets to fund the teachers' pay award. It leaves council tax payers bemused with bigger bills and poorer services and that is why we shall vote against it tonight.

Mr. David Watts: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing on securing what is undoubtedly an excellent settlement for local government expenditure. I did not expect Opposition Members to support it. We all know that local elections are pending and we can all envisage the manifestos being rehearsed in today's speeches. However, I recognise that there are problems. Certainly 18 years of Tory Government have left local authorities with reduced powers, little financial self-control and low morale. Local authorities are now unable to respond to local community needs and as a result the number of people taking part in local elections has declined. This year's settlement will maintain services, will allow for some slight increases in expenditure on key services and will lead to some improvements.
On the crucial issue of fairness I do not believe that the settlement makes much progress on changing the grant system to make it fairer on local authorities such as St. Helens. However, before Opposition Members support that sentiment, I would point out that the Government inherited the present inadequate grant system from the previous Administration. It is very unfair and has undoubtedly reduced the powers and independence of local government. It has increased central control over council budgets and has massively increased local council taxes so it is hardly surprising that the Government face major problems in dealing with the legacy of 18 years of Tory Government.
The present system crammed more council resources into areas such as Westminster. There is no doubt about that. After two years, no Opposition Member has yet come to the Dispatch Box and apologised to the House and to the country for the corruption in Westminster council.
I am sad that we have not made more progress on fairness. The decision to kick the issue into the long grass for three years is most disturbing. I had honestly hoped that we could have made more progress and I am disappointed, as is my local authority. However, I am aware of the difficulties. I watched my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing on television recently. First she was criticised for not making enough changes to the system and then she was told that the changes that she had made were too severe. I understand that it is difficult to make changes. Obviously, people are concerned about the effects of this year's settlement on their local councils.
Many people in areas such as Barnsley and St. Helens want the Government to recognise that the unfairness has lasted, not for one year, but for 18 years. The massive differences in grant between authorities must be dealt with.
Moreover, the London lobby has been very strong. The Evening Standard has mounted a massive campaign about proposed changes to the education standard spending assessments. There is growing discontent in the north-west and Yorkshire about the weight thrown by the London press behind the lobby to maintain the status quo. The Government must understand that many people want and expect substantial changes to be made in the near future.
My local council in St. Helens is run well. It is praised by the district auditor, has fewer chief officers than most local authorities, and is an efficient and effective organisation. However, its council tax is high and there is a shortage of resources. That is not due to the way in which the council is run but to the grant system with which we have to live.
The Government want local government to make efficiency savings of 2 per cent. That will be exceedingly difficult for authorities such as St. Helens and Barnsley. It will not be so difficult for areas such as Westminster: I would rather make annual cuts of 10 per cent. in Westminster's expenditure than of 2 per cent. in St. Helens. Certain councils are awash with money, while others have very limited resources.
It is unfair to assert that, under the present grants system, each local authority should be treated the same. It will be virtually impossible for areas such as Barnsley to achieve the Government target. We have heard already that, despite this year's good settlement, there is likely to be an increase of 10 per cent. in Barnsley's council tax, and further cuts in provision are also probable. Given Barnsley council's massive efficiency savings over the past few years, that is not appropriate.
I shall briefly describe the problems that we face. How can it be fair for Westminster to be considered to be in greater need than Liverpool? How can Wandsworth be in greater need than Barnsley? How can Westminster get £1,000 more per child than St. Helens for the provision of education, and £150 per person more for cultural events? How can leafy Kensington and Chelsea get £150 more than St. Helens in SSAs?
The facts speak for themselves. The present system is corrupt and needs to be radically reviewed. Local government spending should be based first on the standard cost of service provision, then on the spending needs of each local authority. For example, if a school has lots of pupils who speak languages other than English, the amount of money devoted to that school should be based on the actual costs incurred, rather than on some theory put together by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

Mr. Gardiner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Watts: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me if I say no.
The introduction of factors such as poverty, unemployment and health into the equation is long overdue. One of the worst things that the previous Government did was to ignore unemployment and poverty. I hope that this Government's review will take such factors on board.
The present system means that many councils have high levels of council tax and poor levels of service, for no other reason than that the SSA system does not work in their favour. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing will consider three requests. The first—which I was pleased to hear has already been conceded today—is that the Government come back every year to report on the progress achieved in the reviews that have been set up. The second request is for an assurance that the review will be completed and implemented in three years. I am aware that there will be


an election coming up around that time, and that it is probable that the issue will be left until afterwards: I should be grateful for an assurance to the contrary.
My final request has to do with housing benefit subsidy. My hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) asked how many people supported the Government's proposal on housing benefit subsidy, and how many opposed it. The answer to the first question was none, and to the second that all the letters would be placed in the Library. I believe that there is a substantial number.

Mr. Simon Burns: How many?

Mr. Watts: I do not know exactly how many; perhaps the Minister can enlighten us.
Some assurances would give authorities such as St. Helens some confidence that we will make progress. I do not underestimate the problems that any Government would have in trying to clear up the legacy left by the previous Government. However, I hope that my suggestions can be taken on board, and that there will be substantial progress as quickly as possible. I certainly hope to see changes within the next few months.

Sir Paul Beresford: I always enjoy the Secretary of State's presentations on local government finance. He is bluff, and he raises a smile. He also tries to cover up the underlying trends. The hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) picked out one of those trends, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) noted it too. That trend is the tendency to move money out of London and the south-east in spite of difficulties there.
Last year, that movement was pretty blatant, and I was intrigued to find in this year's small print that it is even more blatant this time. Standard spending assessment was defined until this year as
representing an appropriate level of budget requirement to provide a standard level of service".
However, paragraph 3.2 of "The Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999/2000" refers to the SSA calculation as follows:
The calculation makes use of information reflecting demographic, physical and social characteristics of each area.
In other words, SSA means whatever Ministers want it to mean in the month in which they set the assessment. I should, of course, have expected that. The same subjective approach has been taken towards capping.
When the draft reports were announced, the Secretary of State took great pleasure in informing me that there would be an above-inflation increase for Surrey. By that, he meant Surrey county council, not the districts, and he neglected to point out a few disturbing factors. Almost all the increase went into the education SSA, and we have had letters pushing for effective hypothecation of that grant.
The Secretary of State did not say that the social services grant in Surrey has been severely damaged, and other hon. Members have noted the same for their areas. The community care grant has been cut by £6.5 million

this year, a cut that entirely fails to recognise projects set in train this year that have continuing commitments into next year, and possibly beyond.
The grant changes have been offset to some degree. The means by which the Government are covering the trend is by a one-off, larger-than-usual distribution from the business rate pool for the district councils. That offset is a just one-off, however.
Even given the SSA for education, authorities will have to find money for such matters as class size increases. The Government want class sizes to reduce, but the school population increase counters that. Money will also be needed for the pay increase for teachers.
Surrey county council is a major preceptor on the districts that collect the council tax. Despite Surrey's enormous effort to find efficiency savings, the county's precept looks likely to rise by 8 to 9 per cent. That precept will be loaded on to districts in Surrey that have already been clobbered with a dramatic loss in real terms. Mole Valley district council's revenue support grant has gone down by 28 per cent. That reduction is covered this once by the increase in the business rate grant, but the prospects are bleak for the years after the one-off offset.
Surrey county council is not the only preceptor: Surrey police take a precept too.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Paul Beresford: I will not. I hope that the Minister does not mind, but I have only 10 minutes.
Surrey police have been hit quite severely. They got a nil cash increase. The increase that they got resulted from boundary changes in respect of the Metropolitan police authority's introduction. However, they have had to continue facing the pressures that were placed on them previously. The precept increase for the police alone is likely to be 13 to 14 per cent.
The Surrey police suffer from a unique and topical addition to those pressures. If the House of Lords decision goes the way that the Government appear to want in respect of a certain guest in this country—General Pinochet—Surrey may have to find an extra £1 million for his guest residency there. Perhaps we could move him somewhere further north. Pleas to the Home Office fell on deaf ears.
It is London where the particularly inspired activities have been going on. Underneath, London has been hit hard on the draft grant. As the hon. Member for St. Helens, North said, there were screams; that is an understatement. As a consequence, we got a special grant but it appears to be for only one year. The long-term prospect is grim.
Again we have difficulty in respect of precept. This goes back to the Metropolitan police. The Metropolitan Police Committee, now expanded by the Home Secretary's addition of Labour Councillors, got a report from the official receiver to the Metropolitan police on the Met's financial affairs. To keep a tight budget, the Met is introducing efficiency changes; I understand that there will be between 400 and 500 fewer policemen in the next financial year, including reductions in the special constabulary. As a result, the committee recommended a


precept increase of between 0 and 4 per cent. That did not appeal to the Home Secretary who, through the official receiver, requested a 9 per cent. increase.
The Metropolitan police has in many ways run a tight budget, particularly in respect of its balances, which it has successfully kept low. Now the official receiver tells us that the precept needs to be increased by 9 per cent. to put another £40 million into the balances. The excuse is that it is suddenly possible that a large number of middle-aged policemen—out of the blue if hon. Members will excuse the pun—will rush to retire. That is not reality. The probable reality is that this is the last opportunity for the Home Secretary to use a precept on the home counties, including Surrey, before the boundary change. It is also an opportunity for him to stuff the balances so that the mayor and the Greater London authority will have large funds sitting there at the expense of the people of London.
Time is short but the accusations against the Government of manoeuvring figures to suit themselves seem to be corroborated by the report before us, which I will emphatically oppose.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: It is with some reluctance that I join this debate, which is essentially a debate with good friends. I would rather be applauding, but it is important to bring to the House's attention the serious situation in Lancashire county council and to welcome the opportunity for review that lies ahead.
I confess an interest in that I worked for Lancashire county council for 15 years. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the extremely honourable Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) is in her place. For some 16 years, she led Lancashire county council magnificently during—and this context is important—the most terrible times for local government. Local government was under sustained assault and public services were under threat. Lancashire county council held up a shield and strove to preserve decent standards, using balances and all sorts of devices, wit and ingenuity to support places of education and inspiration. It regenerated rundown industrial sites and paid for bus services to rural villages where no private company would go. It sheltered vulnerable people from the contemptible policies of the Conservative party.
Lancashire county council paid dearly for its actions. It was hammered with regular above-average reductions in grant-related expenditure assessments and SSAs, and then suffered an act of calculated malice. The worst of all possible reorganisations removed Blackpool and Blackburn, and left behind 11 districts and an incoherent structure that lacked any real identity. The reorganisation left the remnants of a shire county that was far removed from the typical profile, with large areas of real urban deprivation, as well as extensive rural areas with problems of neglect and sparsity. The county was forged in the industrial revolution and has an aging communications network, and bridges and moss roads that require fundamental reconstruction.
Lancashire has had long-standing financial problems in the past 10 years. It saw increases in SSA and grant-related expenditure assessment of 53 per cent., compared with 61 per cent. for the average county and 72 per cent. for England as a whole. Despite having a social

profile more akin to that of metropolitan boroughs, the shire county had an SSA of £764 per head of population rather than the £862 of metropolitan districts. That is a long-winded way of saying that, despite last year's above average increase, the increase of £25 million in this year's education SSA and this year's increase of 4.5 per cent. against the shire county average of 5.2 per cent., we do not have enough funds to do what we desperately want to do. It is not enough to make up for the loss of grant and the previous use of balances, which are now completely depleted. The county, which was hammered during years of Tory Government, is in a desperate financial situation.
I would like the review to address the ways in which the calculation of SSAs seriously disadvantages Lancashire. For example, we would like to see education SSAs calculated and weighted according to pupil and school numbers. The educational needs index should take more account of low attainment and reduced variation between pupils. We would like to see interest receipts SSAs based on actual past interest receipts, rather than on the size of SSAs, because balances are so low.
I agree with many hon. Members: we would like to see a fairer resolution of area cost adjustments. I think that there is a real danger that the current methodology overstates the actual burden facing authorities in areas with higher labour costs. Without some changes, we will have a council tax of some £730 at band D—which is 37 per cent. higher than council tax for standard spending—and a council tax increase of 8.5 per cent., which means that we could lose £1 million in council tax benefit subsidy. I ask the Government to re-examine that issue.
We have seen cuts in the number of fire engines, and in resources and support for statemented pupils. There have been cuts in highway maintenance—road gritting was reduced this winter. We face possible cuts in the youth service and a consultation document contemplates breaking the long-standing principle that even the smallest rural schools should have at least two teachers. I deplore such proposals, as I deplored the cuts this financial year in the number of homes for older people.
That does not provide best value for local people, as taxpayers or customers, and it is not the quality of service provision that we should achieve under a Labour Government and a Labour county council. At a time when education in this country is being afforded the most wonderful opportunities in decades, I deplore the fact that a letter is circulating in Lancashire schools offering only the prospect of no change. Thanks to years of Conservative depredation, people working in the public services are desperate for change. I ask the Government to do more for Lancashire.
I also want Lancashire to do more for itself. There is an urgent need to modernise, to reduce bureaucracy, to decentralise decision making and trust some of the excellent people working at the coal face in public services, to listen to people and to respond to the real needs of the community. Lancashire needs the scrutiny that a great reforming Government, committed to improving standards, will bring. The task of modernising Lancashire and improving public services would be far easier, the crucial message about the Government's commitment to education, social services and other public services would be far clearer, and the great opportunity


that the Labour Government present would be seized far more readily if the people of Lancashire had a little more help now.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As far as Derbyshire is concerned, today's debate is held against a background of the capping imposed on Derbyshire county council earlier this year. The Government make great play of their getting rid of what they call crude and universal capping, but they are replacing crude and universal capping with a system that they are not prepared to define. The new system is to be fairer, nicer, lovey-dovey and more feely—no doubt, it will also be more understanding. However, they are the very Government who this year imposed the smallest cap ever on a local authority: £1 million off a budget of £470 million. The new Labour Government put that cap on Derbyshire.
So small is the cap that, for some authorities, rebilling cost almost as much again as the reduction set on those local authorities. In Amber Valley, rebilling council tax cost £85,000, whereas the reduction secured by that process was a mere £175,000. Those figures were confirmed to me today by the chief executive. In Derbyshire Dales, rebilling cost £29,000, whereas the overall reduction was £130,000. That is the background against which I see the Government's latest settlement.
I see the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) in his place. He was unable to participate in the capping debate because of illness, so I am glad to see him back here today. At the last general election, numerous Labour Members of Parliament and candidates went up and down the county saying how different everything would be under a Labour Government. The area cost adjustment would be sorted out—evened out—so that there was fairness across the land. No more was the money to go to areas that benefited from the area cost adjustment and were supposedly being feather-bedded by the Tories.
It is interesting to look at what has happened in respect of the area cost adjustment, especially in primary schools. It is no good Labour Members blaming everything on the previous Conservative Government. I know they find it hard to understand, but I well understand that we have had a Labour Government for two years now, and the figures we are discussing are not Conservative figures. The figures are not the Conservatives' recommendations, but new Labour's recommendations to the House, which they will no doubt force through the House tonight.
In 1997–98, in Hertfordshire the SSA was £2,135 per pupil, whereas in Derbyshire it was £1,952: a difference—one that is largely owed to the area cost adjustment—of £183 per pupil. What do the latest figures show? Do they show that figure going down, or the area cost adjustment going down so that there is more equal distribution across the country? No. They reveal that the area cost adjustment is rising.
For several years, Derbyshire county council issued leaflets with its rates bills saying how awfully it was treated by the previous Conservative Government, how terrible was the difference in area cost adjustment and how the world would change when new Labour came into

office: the universe would be nicer; the Derwent would flow with milk and honey and we would all go around smiling.

Mr. David Taylor: Not you.

Mr. McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman is quite right—I am not smiling. That is because my constituents have been sold a false prospectus and they do not think that the Derwent flows with milk and honey because the area cost adjustment has increased instead of decreased.

Mr. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McLoughlin: No, I will not because of the 10-minute rule on speeches. Under the previous Government, there was a full day's debate on the local government finance motion, and I should have liked such a debate today.
When the Conservative Government were responsible for primary schools, the area cost adjustment was £183 per pupil and now it is £197. That increase has nothing to do with the previous Government and everything to do with the new Labour Government. The same is true for the area cost adjustment for secondary schools because in the last year for which the Conservatives were responsible for that, Hertfordshire's advantage over Derbyshire amounted to £224 per pupil. The latest figure, for 1999–2000, is £234 per pupil.
I am not the only person who feels disappointed about that. I received a letter that the headmaster of Queen Elizabeth's grammar school in Ashbourne sent to parents. HON. MEMBERS: "Grammar school?"] Yes, a grammar school. I suggest that hon. Members come to Ashbourne because they would find that Queen Elizabeth's is a grammar school in name because of its foundation, but that it is a comprehensive school that takes pupils from every background. I dislike the way in which the words "grammar school" are regarded by Labour Members as swear words. It is true that the school is not in a catchment area to which the Prime Minister could send his children.
The headmaster said:
The present Government pledged whilst in opposition to change the system of financing schools to make it more equitable. They have not done so. As a result my professional association, the Secondary Heads Association, has decided to join in a national campaign to secure a fair distribution of educational resources for all children. If you agree with me that it is wrong to deny your sons and daughters resources which are given to others, you may wish to join in this campaign.
It is estimated that if that school was funded on the same basis as schools in Hertfordshire, it would receive £278,000 more than it does at present. That is why I am annoyed and I cannot accept the proposals before the House today.
The Government tried to build up expectations and there is no point in anyone saying that they did not. I shall wait with great interest to read the leaflet issued with Derbyshire county council's rates demand to find out whether it will point out, as it did under the previous Government, how unfairly Derbyshire is being treated by the Government, although that would require the council to be consistent.
There has been a disturbing admission by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Local Government and Housing—the hon. Lady has not yet made a speech,


but she did intervene earlier—that no meetings would be held this year because the Government had no intention of changing the methodology. She is nodding.

Ms Armstrong: I announced that in December.

Mr. McLoughlin: I want to be absolutely clear on this. Perhaps the Minister can help me. Does that mean that we will see no change over the next three years in the area cost adjustment? That is a very important question, to which we all want an answer.

Ms Armstrong: rose—

Mr. McLoughlin: I cannot give way due to time.
For many years, Derbyshire county council has blamed Conservative Governments for school financing problems. I have always maintained—and still maintain—that school funding is much more complicated than that. It is far too complex and opaque. The result, which everybody can see, is that schools and parents are caught in a web of statistics, on which everyone involved puts their own interpretation. I urge the Government to do something about that.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I have a somewhat different perspective on this debate, which I shall elucidate.
We must recognise the importance of local government and the crucial, pivotal role that it plays in delivering many of our election pledges. Local authorities' important role in bringing about the improvements that we want—a better society and better local government—cannot be underestimated.
My council, Halton, is one of the new unitary authorities, which are very much in the front line for raising standards in schools and providing better services for young and old alike. Like many councils, Halton plays a pivotal role in other issues, such as introducing the new deal and the partnership within it. Many demands are therefore placed on its time and resources. It has responded positively, flexibly and innovatively to initiatives that the Government have launched. I want to explain why the local government grant settlement is a good one, and show by way of the example of Halton how the Government's approach to local government finance is making a positive difference in my constituency.
My authority is one of the 50 most socially deprived local authority areas in England and Wales. The need to provide better services, especially by raising educational standards and helping children via social services, is vital. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that this is one of the most generous local government settlements since the introduction of the council tax. I have no hesitation in supporting the Government's view. The settlement was good for Halton this year, and will be good for it in the corning year, too. We cannot separate the two.
The approach to local government finance, certainly for Halton, has been good. There is clear and tangible evidence that the Government are making a positive difference to the lives of my constituents. More resources have been—and are being—made available. There is clear

water between the previous Government's negative approach and the positive approach of this Government. For instance, under the previous Government, the settlement increased in 1995–96 by only 0.5 per cent. But for 1999–2000, the increase will be 5.5 per cent. The message from this settlement is that the Government want to support local government in improving the quality of services.
In Halton, we have seen an increase in standard spending assessment of 5.9 per cent. It will be spending above its SSA on education—spending £2 million extra on schools. School budgets will be increased and youth services will be better funded, as will adult education. That cannot be separated from other Government initiatives on education. My authority has received more than £2 million in successful standards fund bids. We have seen an increase in the allocation for professional development, and new classrooms. The effect of that on head teachers was fantastic. They have been after the extra money for many years, and it has made a positive difference.
There were five literacy and numeracy schemes in my constituency over the summer. One of them was the very first to integrate special needs children and children from mainstream schools. To see the determination of children on those schemes to achieve something and better themselves was fantastic. The council has also run several projects on social exclusion, and much more.
There has also been a good increase in annual capital guidelines. The need for more school places is recognised, especially in Widnes, the largest area in my constituency.
I am pleased that we have had a large increase in personal social services this year. The increase of 24 per cent. for children's social services is particularly important and recognises the inequalities under the previous system. Areas like mine have a high degree of social deprivation and difficulties in terms of the number of single parents, children living in poverty, and overcrowding. That has been a major determining factor in the allocation of extra resources, which are very welcome in my constituency.
I shall refer briefly to another respect in which the settlement shows the difference between the previous Government and the present one. People who know the north-west know that one of the great landmarks is the Widnes-Runcorn bridge. It is regularly jammed with traffic, because it was not built for the amount of traffic that uses it—we need a new bridge. The existing bridge needs extra maintenance and support. The previous Government and the previous county council did not fund that, but this Government have recognised the problem and have increased the transport programmes from £1 million to £3 million, which will go a long way towards dealing with the problems associated with the bridge. That is another example of the difference that the Government are making.
We cannot separate this year's announcement from last year's or from the other initiatives that the Government have taken. One of those involves capital receipts. For the first time, there has been a relaxation on capital receipts. The previous Government would not do that. Housing Ministers used to blame the Treasury. In Halton, the relaxation on capital receipts has meant an extra £2.2 million, much of which has been spent on


modernising houses, which had stopped under the previous Government, and on central heating programmes.
The settlement is good for council tax payers in Halton, where the council tax increase this year will be in line with the Government's guidelines. The council tax will also probably be, as it was last year, the second or third lowest in the north-west.
When I was the chair of finance on my borough council, and previously the chair of housing, it used to frustrate me no end—and every other councillor—that we could not plan for future years. We had no idea from one year to the next what settlement we would get. That was difficult not just for us as councillors, but for the people whom we served. Numerous minor changes would be made from one year to the next, which could not be explained away and caused even more problems. Now we have stability for the next three years and the ability to plan, which is a massive step forward and one of the most welcome aspects of the Government's approach to local government finance.
There have been important changes to capping. Universal capping has been removed. The Government are retaining some powers in that regard, which is sensible. I support their position. The previous Government would not countenance any change in capping, whereas this Government have listened and moved a fair way down the road.
Many hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have mentioned problems in their areas. Clearly, the system must be fairer. It will never be fairer to everyone—that would be impossible to achieve—but much progress has been made. There are many issues relating to housing benefit, for example, that affect my constituents, because there are so many housing association houses in the Halton area.
Change takes time, and it is not unreasonable to expect us to be patient. There is some way to go yet. The Government have made a clear commitment to examine the issues, and they have made a good start. I welcome the local government settlement. Local government must modernise itself, give best value and ensure that its services are best directed at those whom it serves, at a price that they are willing to pay.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Twigg: I am sorry—I have finished.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) says that this is a good settlement. He might like to come and explain that to people in Oxfordshire where, as a consequence of this year's settlement, families on income support who have children with learning difficulties will have to pay for day-care provision.
At the last general election, I predicted that if there were a Labour Government, counties such as Oxfordshire would be hard hit. If one examines this year's settlement, one sees that local authorities in the south have been hit, shire counties have been hit, and rural areas have been

hit; so a shire county in the south that is predominantly rural, like Oxfordshire, is triply hit. The proof is there. Even the shire county SSA average increase is 5.2 per cent. this year. Oxfordshire simply has 3.8 per cent.—one of the lowest awards in the country.
This year, social services have £1 million more, but last year they had £1 million less. So in cash terms this coming year Oxfordshire will have to cope with what it had way back in 1997. In Oxfordshire, we face the possible closure of a number of day centres for the elderly and respite care centres for those with learning difficulties, and massive reductions in social service provision. The social service provision will be decimated.
Immediately after the settlement, the Minister for Local Government and Housing said on Radio 4 that no council should have to raise its council tax by more than 4.5 per cent. The Labour budget proposed for Oxfordshire county council would see a council tax rise of 12.5 per cent. Even that would not enable Oxfordshire county council to spend its SSA on education, and there would still be substantial cuts in social services. The Labour budget would see a council tax increase of some £285.
The Conservatives have sought to table an indicative budget, which they branded Blair's budget, which the county council would have to introduce if it tried to stick as close as possible to the Government's pronouncement of a council tax increase of 4.5 per cent. That would mean that spending on education was still below SSA, but social services provision would be decimated, like other budgets.
In Oxfordshire, families on income support now have to pay for basic services and the county surveyor has told parish councils that the budget cuts effectively mean that the minor road network will not be resurfaced for at least 50 years. A number of villages are now surrounded by failed road signs. The village of Piddington outside Bicester now has a number of failed road signs.
As a consequence of this year's settlement, hundreds of the most vulnerable people in Oxfordshire will suffer, and throughout the county the infrastructure will increasingly crumble. Most people will find it difficult to understand how the Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities could say, the day after the settlement, that the people in Oxford and the rest of the county could expect steadily improving services. They clearly will not be able to.
When I intervened on the Deputy Prime Minister on the day that the announcement was made, he said that this year's settlement represented the best deal that Oxfordshire has had for years. I suspect that that will be emblazoned above the door of every closed day and respite care centre and every failing old people's home. Never before in the history of Oxfordshire county council has that come about.
This settlement for shire counties such as Oxfordshire means higher taxes and fewer services. It is a unique combination of the tax and the axe. Labour's settlement is an attack on the most vulnerable people in Oxfordshire. We shall see a substantial hike in our council tax bills and at the same time basic services in Oxfordshire will be decimated.
The settlement is a disgrace to the Government. I suspect that many people in Oxfordshire who voted Labour at the last general election will now be regretting it; that will be clearly demonstrated in the local government elections later this year. There can be no


justification for this settlement, and no justification for its impact on Oxfordshire. I therefore hope that hon. Members, and many people, will vote against this monstrous settlement.

Mr. Tony Clarke: I will be brief, not because of the time limit, but because I would not be making such a contribution were I as satisfied as some of my hon. Friends in respect of their settlements. I also believe that, the longer I am on my feet, the greater the chance of my saying something that I might regret at a later date. The Minister would expect a certain amount of criticism. It has been, is and always will be the case that those who receive the lowest settlements will plead their case, but I will try to be constructive and balanced in that criticism.
I of course recognise that this is probably one of the best settlements for a long time—for seven years, the Deputy Prime Minister said—and that the 5.5 per cent. average increase is to be welcomed. However, those at the lower end of that average—the losers—start to feel a little like someone at a party who is stone cold sober, and wondering what all the fun is about, when everyone else is drunk.
Northampton borough council, whose area is in my constituency, has been treated particularly badly and has a paltry 1.1 per cent. increase. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions says that the average council tax increase should be 4.5 per cent., if councils were spending to the average increase in their standard spending assessment. There would be a doubling effect in Northampton. Not only do we have one of the lowest settlements, but we would probably have had to levy a higher council tax because of the problem of continual cutback over a number of years and our inability to deliver to the people of Northampton the services that they expect.
I acknowledge that Northamptonshire county council and South Northamptonshire council, whose areas are in my constituency, have done a little bit better, but that makes it even harder to accept that Northampton borough council has been left in such a position. Northampton has been badly treated for four reasons; two are directly related to the formula and the way that the figures have been calculated, and two are broader, but equally significant.
I have told the Minister on a number of occasions that I believe that Northampton continues to suffer, as the largest non-unitary district council in England. A population of 200,000 means that we are simply in the wrong club, and we should not be there with our district council colleagues. Northampton should have achieved unitary status when its neighbours—Milton Keynes, Leicester, Derby and Nottingham—achieved it; because of that, the town aspires to unitary status but has to accept, at the moment, that its budget of £19.1 million is not enough to meet the aspirations of its people.
Some may say that economies of scale could be made, but that would not work in Northampton because the population data used by the Department is not only outdated, but continually out of date. Northampton is still the third-fastest growing town in Europe. The DETR figure for the population is 194,000. The council accepts the figure of 198,000, but the population is already probably more than 200,000.
Each year, between 2,000 and 2,500 homes are constructed in Northampton. Each year, they bring with them additional burdens for the council, which has to provide additional services. I give an example of that effect. On this year's settlement, we will be paid only for the 194,000 people who the Department recognise as living in the town, but we will have to provide services for the 198,000 or more people who live there. We will also have to find, in the next 12 months, an additional £135,000, simply for refuse collection and street cleaning, for the 3,000 people who will move on to new estates and into new areas between now and next year's settlement.
In respect of the changes to the methodology on capital financing, I also believe that Northampton has been particularly hard hit: 5 per cent. of our £19.1 million budget—£545,000—has disappeared, because of that one change. We pleaded with the Minister that a council such as Northampton, which has been hit so badly by one factor, should be able to phase the change in. We should be able to manage that transition over a longer period, so that it will not have such devastating effect on the budget.
I make no excuse for mentioning the impact that the Easter floods of last year had on Northampton. Even after the money provided by the Bellwin scheme and the insurance costs that were paid, the council faces £300,000 in costs that it knows it cannot recover. Because 2,500 homes were flooded, it was impossible to collect council tax from homes that were uninhabitable. That alone has cost us £500,000.
Given the time, I must cut short my comments. Let me simply ask my hon. Friend the Minister to understand Northampton's difficulties better, and to understand my continuing disquiet, both as a constituency MP and as one who is still a member of Northampton borough council, about the fact that, given that paltry 1.1 per cent., we may be unable to deliver the services that she would want us to deliver. I am sure that, if she understands that, she will understand why I cannot support the settlement until I feel that it is fairer to Northampton and its council tax payers.

Mr. Lansley: rose—

Mr. Gardiner: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can it be right that, of the three hours available for discussion of the local government settlement, an hour and 25 minutes will have been taken up by the opening and closing speeches from the two Front Benches, and—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, and I entirely understand the point that he is trying to make, but this is the way the House always conducts business of this kind. The time that hon. Members take for their speeches is largely a matter for them, and time is now being taken from the time that is left for debate.

Mr. Andrew Lansley: If the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) has an objection, he should raise it with his Front Bench. Last year, five hours and two minutes were allowed for this debate, and in the preceding nine years never was less than five hours and 20 minutes allowed. This year, the time has been reduced to two hours and 49 minutes.
It is clear from the three speeches that we have just heard why the Government do not want a long debate on this subject. The hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) is in a minority of one on the Labour Benches in applauding the settlement. Why does he applaud it?

Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lansley: No; I have no time.
I will tell the House why the hon. Member for Halton applauds the settlement. The hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke), for example, spoke of methodology changes, and the Government's political fix which meant shifting money from shire areas and London to metropolitan areas: 2.9 per cent. has been lost in Northampton in methodology changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) spoke of Oxfordshire, where a 4.8 per cent. increase in the control total was reduced to 3.8 per cent., simply because of the SSA methodology changes. The hon. Member for Halton is happy, however. Why is he happy? Because the control total increase of 4.1 per cent. was increased to 5.9 per cent. by the changes in SSA methodology. That proves the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) was making about the shift from the shires and London to the metropolitan districts.

Mr. Andrew Love: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Lansley: No.
That is why the hon. Member for Halton is happy, and others are not.

Mr. Love: rose—

Mr. Eric Pickles: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lansley: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), because it would be discourteous not to do so.

Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am not sure whether it is premature to welcome him to the Front Bench, but I do so in any case.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard) welcomed the 7.2 per cent. increase for education. Will the hon. Gentleman now take the opportunity to welcome the 5.5 per cent. overall increase in spending on local government in the coming year?

Mr. Lansley: In the few minutes left to me, I shall make it clear that although the Government have increased spending for local authorities, they have not kept in touch with the current changes in spending pressures. Let me give an example. There has been a £2 billion increase in aggregate external finance in England, but an extra £130 million must be spent by local government because of the change in advance corporation tax. It would have been £230 million but for the changes in actuarial calculations. At least £100 million, probably more, will have to be spent on the millennium bug,

and £80 million will have to be spent on landfill tax. Anyone who knows about waste will know that will be compounded by the increased cost of waste charges. The working time directive and the minimum wage will cost £200 million. Then there is the overhang of teachers' pay settlements, and the £70 million extra that is unfunded. If we add all that together, we realise that at least £600 million is being taken out of the £2 billion.

Mr. Pickles: In his brief speech so far, my hon. Friend has explained where the £33 million by which Essex county council is short to fund its services adequately, has gone.

Mr. Lansley: Absolutely. Essex has exactly the same experience as Cambridgeshire. Although we have an increase, spending pressures are such that we will end up with a 10 per cent. increase in council tax. The Government's policies will lead to a higher council tax and a loss of services.
My hon. Friends the Members for Wantage (Mr. Jackson) and for Banbury instanced that in relation to Oxfordshire. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) spoke of Dorset and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. King) spoke strongly of the impact on schools in Somerset. The hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) perhaps put it best when he described it as another abysmal year.
The impact is on council tax in the first instance. Last year, the average increase was 8.6 per cent.; this year, the Treasury estimates a 7.5 per cent. increase. If we put the two together, in the two years to 2000 the Government will preside over increases in council tax that are three times the rate of inflation. The Government are again introducing stealth taxes through local government taxation. Within the settlement, much has not been done, and that deserves our criticism. The Government have significantly failed to grasp important nettles. My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) spoke strongly of the failure to remedy unreasonable deficits and disparities in funding for local education authorities. Work should be done on the additional educational needs index and on pupil weighting.
Likewise, my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) spoke strongly about the need to do something about the area cost adjustment. I understand that, because Cambridgeshire is one of those councils that is beyond the cliff edge in terms of the adjustment. The Deputy Prime Minister says that it is difficult. Three days before the last general election, the Prime Minister, when asked the question, "What are you going to do about it?" did not say, "It is difficult"; he said, "I am going to review it and change it for the year 1998–99."
The Prime Minister did not change it for the year 1998–99. He is not changing it for 1999–2000—he is freezing an unfair distribution system for a further three years. To compound the error of his ways, the Deputy Prime Minister says that Ministers will not take deputations on the subject—they will not listen to the arguments. All the material is being presented through examination of the area cost adjustment, but they will not deal with it.
Through the settlement, the Government have brought further errors into the system. Crude and universal capping is the subject of debate in relation to the Local Government Bill; I suspect that crude and universal capping is precisely what will arise from the powers that the Government are taking through the Bill. However, through the council tax benefit subsidy limitation we have something that is equally crude and universal.
The criticism by the hon. Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) was right. As a consequence of the settlement, some of the poorer councils will have to raise council taxes by more than 4.5 per cent. A significant part of that money will be raised from poor people in their areas. In fact, money will be taken away to subsidise council tax benefit for those who are unable to pay council tax. It is an iniquitous clawback system.
Within that, there is a further iniquity. Councils that spend below SSA—and South Cambridgeshire spends 23 per cent. below it—will be penalised in the same way, although its budget is well below that which the Government regard as necessary for providing services.
Time is short. By keeping the debate so short, the Government have limited the opportunities for hon. Members on both sides of the House to draw out the problems with the settlement.
The size of the settlement hides a reality. Over two years, council tax rises will be three times the rate of inflation. There has been no response to spending pressures. Service improvements that might otherwise have been achieved will be bled away in the cost pressures that are being placed on local government, principally through Government changes: a political fix that shifts money out of shire areas and London into metropolitan areas will damage services in many important regions in a way that is iniquitous and at odds with Deputy Prime Minister's initial statement that the settlement was nothing to do with councils' political complexion. Well, perhaps not—yet the damage that will be caused to certain areas of the country by the Government's methodological changes makes clear their intention.
We are looking at a system which is taking money and piling it into some of the councils that are the most likely to waste it rather than to spend it successfully on good services. It is the traditional Labour policy of increasing taxes and piling it into the waste. It is as though the Government have come to the House saying, "Look how wonderful we are. We have turned on the taps and the water is pouring out." Unfortunately, they have left out the plug. It is our responsibility, in the short time available, to tell the Government where the settlement has gone wrong and to oppose it.

The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have had an interesting debate about a settlement which, despite what hon. Members have said, is the best overall for seven years. It is the most generous settlement since the introduction of council tax and it is fair to all councils, not fixed in the interests of one or two. We have learnt quickly that, however much the settlement is, there will always be arguments about why it should be more and why different areas have different priorities. Of course, we must continue to look at that and we will be doing so.
Conservative Members need to remember the miserable local government settlements that they heaped on all of local government before they venture into criticism this year. Education and social services authorities, whether in rural areas or urban England, have done well as we honour our pledges to raise standards in education and improve health and social services. We have made some changes to the way the formula is calculated so that it better reflects the findings from research into local need and patterns of service delivery.

Sir Peter Emery: The hon. Lady is talking about fairness. East Devon district council has no debt. It is so efficiently run that there is no long-term indebtedness. Despite that, its grant was cut last year, and this year it has not been restored to the level that existed before the Labour party took office. How can that be fair?

Ms Armstrong: The right hon. Gentleman will admit that Devon county council has an increased award this year, which represents the Government's commitment to putting money into education and social services.
In any formula-based system, change means winners and losers—of course it does. This year, to make sure that those changes can be phased in, we have made special provision to ensure that no council will lose grant next year compared to this year. That applies to East Devon too.
Every education and social services authority will receive at least 1.5 per cent. extra in grant next year. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made clear, the settlement provides for £2.6 billion of extra spending—an increase of 5.5 per cent. on last year. That extra money comes with strings attached. It is money for modernisation and for improving the quality of services provided by local councils to their public. Some councils—we have heard this today—may be tempted to use the extra money to restore past cuts and to deal with past problems. I urge them to think again and to use the new resources to look forwards, not backwards. They should plan for new patterns of service to meet the needs of local people today and tomorrow.
Councils now have three years of financial stability to plan and deliver the modernisation of their services. They can use them creatively to restructure services over the medium term and to achieve best value, safe in the knowledge that, for the first time, the Government have set out a three-year funding package.
The Government have made it clear that there will be no methodology changes in the next three years—during which we want to examine the current methodology to determine whether it can be improved. Simultaneously, we want to determine whether there is a system for distributing grant that is much fairer than the standard spending assessment methodology.
I should tell my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) that he would have an opportunity to contribute properly not only to such a review but to his authority. We should think not only about additional educational needs and area cost adjustment, but about whether we can introduce a fairer system of redistribution.

Jackie Ballard: In the next three years, councils will face the council tax benefit subsidy limitation. The Minister received no letters in support of that proposal,


and 119 letters opposed to it, including one from her own Labour-controlled Durham county council. How will she respond to them?

Ms Armstrong: In the same way as I have responded to the House today—[Interruption.] We disagree with them. Consultation does not entail agreeing with everyone. I should not have expected any council to say that it was in favour of—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) does not want to hear the answer.
I should not expect any council to say that it was in favour of the limitation, as it raises the issue of balancing funding from central taxation and from local taxation. Council tax benefit is currently funded from central taxation. We believe that there should be a balance and are giving local councils responsibility for a small element of it.
I reject entirely any suggestion that the settlement is biased in favour of one type of authority or another. I was staggered at the comments on rural areas made by the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). Her county is in a rural area. This year, it received a 6.2 per cent. increase in addition to other specific grants for rural areas, for transport and other rural services. She knows that that is true, and that she was simply being disingenuous.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) complained about Essex, which received the largest cash increase.

Mrs. Shephard: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Armstrong: I shall give way in a moment. First, I should like to say some things to the right hon. Lady, who was plainly out of her depth.
The right hon. Lady said that Norfolk received the worst settlement in its history, which—as she knows—was plain wrong. She said that Birmingham received the biggest increase, which also was wrong. Although Birmingham is the largest authority, it received an overall 4 per cent. increase, which hon. Members will know was not the biggest in the country.
The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk is prepared to throw mud in the hope that it sticks. The Government will deal with the facts, which she has not quite caught up with yet.

Mrs. Shephard: Does the hon. Lady deny the contents of her own table, which shows the reductions for shire areas?

Ms Armstrong: There are not reductions but increases for shire areas—including hers—of 6.2 per cent. Conversely—when was it?—in 1995 or 1996, when the right hon. Lady was in the Cabinet, her Government gave Norfolk county council 0.5 per cent. less than it had received the year before. This year, Norfolk may not have received the increase that the right hon. Lady wanted, but it certainly received a big increase over last year.

Mr. Lansley: Will the hon. Lady simply recognise the fact that, in the coming year—purely because of

methodological changes, on top of last year's similar changes—£43 million will be taken from shire areas, £39 million will be taken from London, and £83 million extra will go to metropolitan areas?

Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman does not understand. The overall amount going in is greater. It may be less than if we had made no changes, but it is still a huge increase. How much would you have given?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must remember that she is addressing the Chair.

Ms Armstrong: How much would the Conservatives have given? We are talking about the distribution of the biggest grant since the introduction of council tax. That is not a reduction; it is an increase.
Brent has had a difficult settlement, but we said that we had to re-order matters to achieve greater fairness. Brent tells me that it is the 20th poorest borough in the country. It is, but it has the 18th highest SSA per head in the country.

Mr. Gardiner: My hon. Friend has listened carefully to Brent's representations over the past weeks and I thank her for that. I also thank her for the extra £2.5 million that she has put in. Will the Government consider rescheduling the debt repayments on the £8.4 million of housing revenue account subsidy that was overpaid under the Conservatives between 1992 and 1995, to give Brent some desperately needed breathing space?

Ms Armstrong: I am sure that Brent will want to come to us and ask for that. I cannot answer that today because it is not an issue for the settlement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) was right to say how generous the settlement is. The council tax benefit subsidy limitation scheme does not hit poorer areas harder. It protects the poorest areas by treating them the same as the average areas.
The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) takes the biscuit. He complains that North Yorkshire did not receive damping grant to bring its grant up to the 1.5 per cent. increase. We used the same principles as his Government, damping on the overall settlement and not on individual methodological changes. North Yorkshire has got 4.7 per cent.
I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) about the difficulties that his authority faces. It is working hard to overcome them.
Let me turn to the Liberal Democrats. I remind them—[Interruption.] They do not want to hear it. In their manifesto, they said that they would spend £1.8 billion per year to a total of £5 billion over three years. Just for the next three years, the Government have committed £19 billion. We have already spent more than they committed for the whole Parliament. They said that they would spend an extra £700 million on health to a total of £2 billion over three years. The Government have committed £21 billion. Either they were not telling us the truth then or they are not telling us the truth today. The Liberal Democrats said today that the gap was


£1.7 billion. The Guardian says that few independent local government analysts agreed that the gap would be that big. The Liberal Democrats need to do some work.
In 1994–95, when the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) was in government, Oxfordshire county council got 0.5 per cent. less than it had the previous year. Maybe that is why it has problems this year.
The settlement is the most generous since the introduction of the council tax. There is more money for modernising services, new protection for the council tax payer, better services—

It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [1 February].

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 140.

Division No. 58]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Corbett, Robin


Ainger, Nick
Corbyn, Jeremy


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Corston, Ms Jean


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cousins, Jim


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Cranston, Ross


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Atkins, Charlotte



Austin, John
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Banks, Tony
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Barnes, Harry
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Barron, Kevin
Darvill, Keith


Bayley, Hugh
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Beard, Nigel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Dawson, Hilton


Bennett, Andrew F
Dean, Mrs Janet


Benton, Joe
Denham, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dismore, Andrew


Berry, Roger
Dobbin, Jim


Best, Harold
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Betts, Clive
Donohoe, Brian H


Blackman, Liz
Dowd, Jim


Blears, Ms Hazel
Drew, David


Blizzard, Bob
Drown, Ms Julia


Boateng, Paul
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Borrow, David
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Efford, Clive


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Buck, Ms Karen
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Fatchett, Derek


Burgon, Colin
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Flint, Caroline


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Foulkes, George


Casale, Roger
Fyfe, Maria


Cawsey, Ian
Galloway, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gapes, Mike


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gerard, Neil



Gibson, Dr Ian


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clwyd, Ann
Godsiff, Roger


Coaker, Vemon
Goggins, Paul


Coffey, Ms Ann
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coleman, Iain
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Colman, Tony
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Connarty, Michael
Hanson, David





Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Morley, Elliot


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Healey, John
Mountford, Kali


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Mullin, Chris


Heppell, John
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hesford, Stephen
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hill, Keith
Norris, Dan


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Home Robertson, John
Olner, Bill


Hoon, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Martin


Hope, Phil
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hopkins, Kelvin
Palmer, Dr Nick


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Pearson, Ian


Howells, Dr Kim
Perham, Ms Linda


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pickthall, Colin


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pike, Peter L


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Plaskitt, James


Humble, Mrs Joan
Pollard, Kerry


Hurst, Alan
Pond, Chris


Hutton, John
Pope, Greg


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pound, Stephen


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Sir Raymond


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jamieson, David
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jenkins, Brian
Primarolo, Dawn


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Prosser, Gwyn


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaUeld)
Quinn, Lawrie



Radice, Giles


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rammell, Bill


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Rapson, Syd


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Raynsford, Nick


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Khabra, Piara S
Rooker, Jeff


Kilfoyle, Peter
Rooney, Terry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Rowlands, Ted


Kingham, Ms Tess
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Ryan, Ms Joan


Laxton, Bob
Salter, Martin


Lepper, David
Sawford, Phil


Leslie, Christopher
Shaw, Jonathan


Levitt, Tom
Sheerman, Barry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Linton, Martin
Shipley, Ms Debra


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Lock, David
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Love, Andrew
Singh, Marsha


McAvoy, Thomas
Skinner, Dennis


McCabe, Steve
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


McDonnell, John
Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)


McFall, John



McIsaac, Shona
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Mackinlay, Andrew
Snape, Peter


McNulty, Tony
Soley, Clive


MacShane, Denis
Spellar, John


Mactaggart, Fiona
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


McWalter, Tony
Stevenson, George


McWilliam, John
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mallaber, Judy
Stoate, Dr Howard


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Stringer, Graham


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marttew, Eric



Maxton, John
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Meale, Alan
Temple-Morris, Peter


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Milburn, Alan
Touhig, Don


Miller, Andrew
Trickett, Jon


Moffatt, Laura
Truswell, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)







Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Wills, Michael


Vaz, Keith
Wilson, Brian


Vis, Dr Rudi
Winnick, David


Walley, Ms Joan
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Wareing, Robert N
Wise, Audrey


Watts, David
Worthington, Tony


White, Brian
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Wyatt, Derek


Wicks, Malcolm



Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)
Tellers for the Ayes:



Mr. Graham Allen and


Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Mrs. Anne McGuire.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Harris, Dr Evan


Allan, Richard
Hawkins, Nick


Amess, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Horam, John


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Ballard, Jackie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Bercow, John
Hunter, Andrew


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Blunt, Crispin
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Boswell, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Brady, Graham
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Brake, Tom
Keetch, Paul


Brazier, Julian
Key, Robert


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Burnett, John
Lansley, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Leigh, Edward


Burstow, Paul
Letwin, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Lidington, David


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)



McIntosh, Miss Anne


Chidgey, David
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Clappison, James
McLoughlin, Patrick


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)
Madel, Sir David


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Malins, Humtrey



Maples, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Colvin, Michael
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Cormack, Sir Patrick
May, Mrs Theresa


Cotter, Brian
Moss, Malcolm


Curry, Rt Hon David
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Oaten, Mark


Day, Stephen
Öpik, Lembit


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan, Alan
Paice, James


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paterson, Owen


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Pickles, Eric


Evans, Nigel
Prior, David


Faber, David
Randall, John


Fabricant, Michael
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fallon, Michael
Rendel, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Robathan, Andrew


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Ruffley, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fraser, Christopher
Sanders, Adrian


Gale, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Garnier, Edward
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spicer, Sir Michael


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Gray, James
Steen, Anthony


Green, Damian
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Swayne, Desmond


Grieve, Dominic
Syms, Robert


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Hammond, Philip
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)





Taylor, Sir Teddy
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Whittingdale, John


Townend, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Trend, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Tyler, Paul
Willetts, David


Viggers, Peter
Willis, Phil


Walter, Robert
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wardle, Charles



Waterson, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Webb, Steve
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Wells, Bowen
Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1999–2000 (HC 143), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.

Resolved,
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 37) (HC 144), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
That the Local Government Finance Report (England) 1997–98: Amending Report 1999 (HC 145), which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

National Lottery

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft Apportionment of Money in the National Lottery Distribution Fund Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 129.

Division No. 59]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Buck, Ms Karen


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cann, Jamie


Atkins, Charlotte
Caplin, Ivor


Austin, John
Casale, Roger


Banks, Tony
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Barren, Kevin



Bayley, Hugh
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Beard, Nigel
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clwyd, Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coaker, Vemon


Bennett, Andrew F
Coffey, Ms Ann


Benton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Iain


Berry, Roger
Colman, Tony


Best, Harold
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Blackman, Liz
Corbett, Robin


Blears, Ms Hazel
Corbyn, Jeremy


Blizzard, Bob
Corston, Ms Jean


Boateng, Paul
Cranston, Ross


Borrow, David
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)







Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Kingham, Ms Tess


Darvill, Keith
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Laxton, Bob


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Lepper, David


Dawson, Hilton
Leslie, Christopher


Dean, Mrs Janet
Levitt, Tom


Denham, John
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Dismore, Andrew
Linton, Martin


Dobbin, Jim
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Lock, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Love, Andrew


Dowd, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Drew, David
McCabe, Steve


Drown, Ms Julia
McDonagh, Siobhain


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
McDonnell, John


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
McIsaac, Shona


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Efford, Clive
Mackinlay, Andrew


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McNulty, Tony


Ennis, Jeff
Mactaggart, Fiona


Fatchett, Derek
McWilliam, John


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Mallaber, Judy


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Flint, Caroline
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Foulkes, George
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Galloway, George
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Gapes, Mike
Maxton, John


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Meale, Alan


Gerrard, Neil
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Gibson, Dr Ian
Milburn, Alan


Godsiff, Roger
Miller, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
Moffatt, Laura


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Moran, Ms Margaret


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Morley, Elliot


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mountford, Kali


Hanson, David
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Healey, John
Norris, Dan


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Hesford, Stephen
Olner, Bill


Hill, Keith
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hoey, Kate
Palmer, Dr Nick


Home Robertson, John
Pearson, Ian


Hoon, Geoffrey
Perham, Ms Linda


Hope, Phil
Pickthall, Colin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Pike, Peter L


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Plaskitt, James


Howells, Dr Kim
Pollard, Kerry


Hoyle, Lindsay
Pond, Chris


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Pound, Stephen


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Humble, Mrs Joan
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Hurst Alan
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Prosser, Gwyn


Iddon, Dr Brian
Quinn, Lawrie


Illsley, Eric
Radice, Giles


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Rammell, Bill


Jamieson, David
Rapson, Syd


Jenkins, Brian
Raynsford, Nick


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)



Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Rowlands, Ted


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Ryan, Ms Joan


Khabra, Piara S
Salter, Martin


Kilfoyle, Peter
Sawford, Phil





Shaw, Jonathan
Touhig, Don


Shipley, Ms Debra
Trickett, Jon


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Singh, Marsha
Vis, Dr Rudi


Skinner, Dennis
Walley, MS Joan


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Watts, David


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
White, Brain


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Snape, Peter
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe,Paul
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stringer, Graham
Wise, Audrey


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Mr. Graham Allen and


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mrs. Anne McGuire.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Garnier, Edward


Allan, Richard
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Amess, David
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Gray, James


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Green, Damian


Ballard, Jackie
Greenway, John


Bercow, John
Grieve, Dominic


Beresford, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Blunt, Crispin
Hammond, Philip


Boswell, Tim
Harris, Dr Evan


Brady, Graham
Hawkins, Nick


Brake, Tom
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Brazier, Julian
Horam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Browning, Mrs Angela
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Burnett, John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Burns, Simon
Jenkin, Bernard


Burstow, Paul
Key, Robert


Butterfill, John
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie



Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Chidgey, David
Lansley, Andrew


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward


Clappison, James
Letwin, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lidington, David



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Colvin, Michael
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Cotter, Brian
McLoughlin, Patrick


Curry, Rt Hon David
Madel, Sir David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Malins, Humfrey


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Maples, John


Day, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan, Alan
May, Mrs Theresa


Duncan Smith, Iain
Moss, Malcolm


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Evans, Nigel
Norman, Archie


Faber, David
Öpik, Lembit


Fabricant, Michael
Page, Richard


Fallen, Michael
Paice, James


Fearn, Ronnie
Paterson, Owen


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Pickles, Eric


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Prior, David


Fox, Dr Liam
Randall, John


Fraser, Christopher
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
Rendel, David






Robathan, Andrew
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Trend, Michael


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Tyler, Paul


Ruffley, David
Viggers, Peter


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Walter, Robert


Sanders, Adrian
Wardle, Charles


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Waterson, Nigel


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Michael
Whittingdale, John


Spring, Richard
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Steen, Anthony
Willetts, David


Streeter, Gary
Willis, Phill


Swayne, Desmond
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Syms, Robert



Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Tellers for the Noes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

FOOD STANDARDS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith,
That a select committee of thirteen Members be appointed to report on the draft bill on the Food Standards Agency (Cm. 4249);
That Ms Diana Organ, Ms Sally Keeble, Audrey Wise, Dr. Howard Stoate, Dr. Lewis Moonie, Mr. Martyn Jones, Mr. Kevin Barron, Dr. Stephen Ladyman, Mr. Owen Paterson, Mr. David Curry, Mr. Robert Walter, Dr. Peter Brand and the Reverend Martin Smyth be members of the Committee;
That the Committee have power

(a) to send for persons, papers and records;
(b) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(c) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
(d) to appoint specialist advisers; and
(e) to communicate to any select committee of either House their evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest; and

That the Committee shall report by 3 I st March 1999.—[Mr. Betts.]

Sir Peter Emery: Object.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): The motion cannot be proceeded with if it is opposed.

Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do you not think that there is something very wrong with appointing a Select Committee when the Government have already announced—I think quite wrongly—that a £90 fee will be imposed across the board on all food outlets, irrespective of size or location?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that the motion is not debatable in any way. That is not a point of order.

Motorway Bridges

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Harry Cohen: I thank Madam Speaker for granting me this Adjournment debate. It is a measure of new Labour that the cry is no longer, "To the barricades!" but, "To the parapets!" However, the issue is an important one. I would describe this as my Bridge of Sighs debate, although the bridges in question and the view from them are not as attractive as their Venetian counterpart.
I, my constituents, and many thousands of people throughout the country sigh with dismay when we see the size of bridge parapets. The debate arises from the bridges recently constructed in my constituency, but it has national implications. The M11 link road is still being built in my constituency, through Leyton, Leytonstone and Wanstead. That is a built-up, well-populated—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has started his Adjournment debate and his time is precious. I should be grateful if hon. Members continued their conversations outside the Chamber.

Mr. Cohen: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My constituency is a built-up, well-populated urban area and the M11 link road has given local residents all sorts of unpleasant surprises. They have not been consulted on many aspects of the project, their complaints are often ignored, and the local environment has been devastated with little recompense or remedial measures.
However, the bridge parapets are a considerable shock, being low and dangerous. Where Blake Hall road, Wanstead and Gainsborough road, Leytonstone cross the speeding motorway below, the parapets are only slightly more than 3 ft high—hip level for the average pedestrian. At Cathall bridge, where there are major housing estates, the parapets are only a little higher. I have received many letters from local residents expressing grave concerns. I have not publicised this debate locally, but Hugh Jones of Wanstead wrote to me only this week saying, initially with sarcasm:
Naturally, like other Link Road fans, I have been greatly reassured by the Highways Agency's comforting assertion that, despite the fears of very many residents, this bridge is safe and, at 3 ft 4 in, over a 50 ft drop, conforms absolutely to national standards. Even as I write I can hear the cheers of relief echoing down the caverns of the still-uncompleted George Green tunnel.
But why is it then that beside Leyton Tube station another Link Road bridge has a parapet which comes up to my shoulder—a height of at least 5 ft, I would guess. Do they have a different national standard in London E10 from the one applying in London Ell? Or do they simply think that the people of Leyton are much more likely to jump? And why don't the people of Wanstead apparently deserve the same heights of care and consideration?
Here are the views of Mrs. Jayham, who wrote:
I am very concerned at the low level of the railings … Could you please investigate and let me know if they conform to Health and Safety standards? I think it is very important to safeguard the safety of pedestrians.


Mrs. Helen Bostock writes:
For many months now I have been very worried about the safety of this bridge and have been into the Link Office to express my concern—to no avail. Thank you for your efforts—I hope Glenda Jackson will visit the site and see the dangers for herself.
Jeanne Hayes says:
I just want to know my children will be safe as they cross the M11 Link Road on their way to Wanstead High School. All it needs is some children to be fooling around or a bully pushing a youngster against the side for an accident to happen.
Louise Buchanan of the Leytonstone 2000 forum says of the low railings:
I don't know how they got away with it. Everything has been done on the cheap. If this was Hampstead or Highgate, I'm sure that things would be excellent … the bridge is used by a lot of children going to Leytonstone School. I'm not saying that they will throw anything on the road, but the temptation is there. If anything like a carrier bag of rubbish is thrown on to the road when there are cars there, it could cause a pile-up. And if anyone wants to throw themselves off, it would be easy.
Mr. Larry Golding warns:
The danger to both children and adults must be obvious to all but the blind and indifferent. In addition projectiles of any sort, by accident or design, will cause a disaster or at least serious injury. I can conceive no logical reason for some form of protection high enough to afford better protection
not being installed.
The link road project manager replied to earlier complaints saying:
I believe pedestrians using the bridge should feel comfortable because of the extra wide footways provided (3.6 m compared to the standard 1.5 m).
My constituent Douglas L. Staudte commented:
The width of the pavement is not in question, although if it was 100 yards wide the parapet would still be low at 3 ft 4 in. I cannot understand the thinking behind it. There is no view to be enjoyed that a higher parapet would obscure. It's a temptation to some idiots to act the fool. It is alarming to look at and a fall would be certain death, if not from the impact then from speeding traffic.
I recount the recent experience of my wife and myself on a bridge with a low parapet when we visited an Essex town. A boy, aged about 10, was wheeling his younger brother in a pushchair over a bridge. The younger boy kept leaving the pushchair, removing his coat and running to the side of the bridge. His older brother kept struggling to bring him back and return him to his coat and the pushchair. My wife and I froze at the end of the bridge as the scene was played out about three times, and I was ready to run on to the bridge if they came close to disaster. Those kids were behaving as kids do; it was the low parapet that made an accident possible.
I have written to the Minister suggesting that she or one her staff visits the Blake Hall road bridge. Plain common sense screams out that those low parapets are not safe.
The replies to the complaints are brief. They repeat that the height complies with the national standard. I have examined that standard, which is contained in section 2.19 of the Highways Agency document BD52/93. The minimum height for a pedestrian parapet is 1,000 mm, which is 3 ft 3.4 in. A footbridge parapet, except over a railway, is a little higher at 1,150 mm. On all bridges over railways, parapets must be 1,250 mm high or, in some circumstances, 1,500 mm. Interestingly, the minimum height for a parapet on a bridleway is 1,800 mm, which is probably just the right height to fall or be thrown from a horse.
The footbridge standard is low, but why is it higher than the standard for pedestrian parapets in urban areas? The standard is higher for bridges over railways. Are motorists' lives deemed to be less important? In my constituency, London Underground has insisted that the bridges over the Central line be covered by tunnels. That implies a wish to avoid debris coming from bridges. If that is the case for the tube, why not for the motorway? After regurgitating the national standard justification, the Minister at least added the caveat,
unless you have any evidence to the contrary".
First, what is the evidence for that national standard? Apparently, it has been in place since the 1960s. Where did it come from? When was it last reviewed? Has there been any public consultation about it? What recent trends in public safety requirements have been taken into account?
Secondly, I have recent evidence. The Guardian of 30 November 1998 carried the headline, "Brothers die in separate falls from road bridge." The article states:
A young man plunged to his death from a motorway bridge yesterday just feet from where his brother slipped and died in a similar accident eight weeks ago. Andrew McKay, aged 21, was sitting on the handrail contemplating his brother when he appeared to overbalance, said relatives. He died from head injuries sustained in the 33 ft fall on to the M8, yards from his home in Riddrie, Glasgow. Strathclyde police said there were no suspicious circumstances and that it was a tragic, bizarre coincidence. On October 3 David McKay, aged 17, slipped while hanging over the bridge railings to impress his new girl friend.
The article quotes the boys' father as calling for motorway bridges to be made safer. He said:
The railings should be higher so it's harder for kids to climb up on them".
So Minister, there is evidence of two recent deaths that were put down to the national standard.
I have more compelling evidence. Paul Watters, head of roads and transport policy for the Automobile Association has written to me about objects thrown from bridge parapets. He writes:
incidents of this type, whilst fortunately still rare, are increasing.
We are aware of the incident on 1 February 1999 on the M23 at Pease Pottage when a large lump of wood struck a car and injured the driver.
I believe that the lump went right through the windscreen and through the child seat like a stake. Fortunately, a child was not in the seat. Mr. Watters continues:
There was a case on the M3 at Odiham Hampshire about 18 months ago when a male was gravely injured after concrete was thrown on to his car. There have also been incidents in the North—a woman suffered eye injuries just before Christmas on a northern motorway. I also recall someone throwing themselves from a bridge and subsequently going through the windscreen of a vehicle on the M3 near Eastleigh last year. Whilst these atrocious acts are isolated, random and rare we want to know the extent of the problem, and what can be done. It would certainly be reassuring to hear that the Highways Agency will agree to providing extra barrier (height) protection at bridges which are considered more at risk than others e. g. close to large housing estates or where there is a lot of late hour pedestrian traffic—this needs to be provided to deter trouble, rather than after it has occurred.
The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has communicated to me that some concrete from the underside of the B5385 bridge fell on to the road on the evening of 8 December. I understand from him that there are bridges with a similar problem on the M1 and the M45. I hope that that point will be taken seriously by the Government, and acted on.
The Minister told me that she would consider any
exceptional safety case for higher parapets".
The AA makes that case, but more generally—not on an individual bridge basis, which would result in relatively few departing from the national standard. That national standard needs to be reviewed and changed. The Minister also wrote to me saying,
There have been incidents of people committing suicide by leaping from a bridge but increasing the height of the parapets is no deterrent to such acts … increasing the height of parapets is unlikely to deter anyone intent on vandalism.
I hope that she will not repeat that line, which was given to her by officials, as most people would regard it as incredible. Low parapets make activity easy for those with such intent. Higher parapets make it difficult.
Some would argue that cost is a reason, but I suspect that the building of lower parapets was motivated by aesthetics. If so, it shows the stupidity of transport officials in thinking that one policy applies to all bridges. It is just not good enough. If the consideration of aesthetics is to be a factor—I do not object to that—higher ornamental railings and mesh should be used. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is living in a "Dixon of Dock Green" dream world on this matter. Public safety must be the paramount priority.
I have raised in the House the issue of corporate neglect. Now I have raised this matter in the House. If nothing is done, any future accident will involve an element of corporate culpability. The corporation in this case will be the DETR. I say to the Minister: "Do not be neglectful. Raise the height. Raise the standard."

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on securing this debate which, as he pointed out, is of particular importance to himself and his constituents. Grateful though I am for the compliment paid to my constituency by one of his constituents, and as is the lot for most hon. Members, it is highly unlikely that any constituent would regard the Hampstead and Highgate environment as perfect.
"The Design of Highway Bridge Parapets"—departmental standard BD52/93, to which my hon. Friend referred—replaced and updated standards that were first issued in January 1967. That standard sets out how a bridge parapet should be built, not only to provide security for pedestrians, but to contain and redirect safely vehicles that have gone out of control. Parapets are generally designed to provide what is known as normal containment, which means that they are required to have the capability to contain and safely redirect a 1.5 tonne car if it should hit a parapet at an angle of 20 degrees, when travelling at 70 mph.
This level of containment has been the design requirement since standards were first developed. It was not until August 1972 that test procedures were sufficiently advanced to be included in the standard. Since then, full-scale vehicle impact testing has been a mandatory requirement.
In 1982 a parapet was introduced to provide a higher standard of containment. It is designed to contain and safely redirect a 30 tonne vehicle travelling at 40 mph if it should hit the parapet at an angle of 20 degrees. That was developed in response to a requirement to provide increased strength against impact by heavier vehicles at high risk locations, where vehicles going through a parapet could have a disastrous effect on life and property. Although its principal use has been where roads cross high-speed railways, there have been instances where it has been provided to give protection, for instance, to factories using potentially dangerous materials in their manufacturing processes.
As my hon. Friend pointed out, the minimum parapet height—3 ft 3 in—has remained constant since 1967, although the dimensions have been metricated and rounded to the nearest sensible measurement. My hon. Friend also referred to the difference in bridges that cross railways. Railway authorities have always required the provision of higher parapets where roads cross the railway. These are set at heights of 4 ft on bridges from which the public are excluded, and 5 ft elsewhere. These dimensions also have been metricated and rounded to the nearest sensible measurement.
There are no records held centrally in the Highways Agency to suggest that those dimensions are inadequate to restrain pedestrians safely. Put simply—I trust that my hon. Friend will not regard this as my simply peddling the usual line—there is no evidence of pedestrians accidentally falling over parapets, although records do exist detailing cases where the judgment was that the deceased most probably committed suicide.
My hon. Friend mentioned a particularly tragic incident in Scotland where, in two separate incidents, two brothers died through falling from a similar bridge on the M8. I understand that the evidence is that the first death resulted from the young man climbing along the outside of the bridge. In the second incident, the young man overbalanced while walking on the handrail. The strong suspicion, I understand, is that that was suicide brought about by the remorse over the loss of his younger brother. Regrettably, despite the arguments that my hon. Friend advanced for the restraining element of height, there is no adequate way of preventing a person from taking his own life if that is the intention.
However, in particular high-risk locations, such as sites adjacent to psychiatric hospitals, higher parapets have been provided in an attempt to provide increased security. It must be emphasised that this is only a partial solution; it is almost impossible to prevent such incidents.
My hon. Friend referred to differential heights where horses are ridden across bridges. On bridges where cyclists and horse riders are required to ride immediately adjacent to bridge parapets, higher parapets are provided. As I am sure my hon. Friend will understand, in both of these instances the rider is at a higher level than a pedestrian would be.
On footbridges and road bridges where there is provision for people to walk, parapets are provided with close mesh sheeting on the traffic, or inner, face. The purpose of this is to increase the difficulty and so reduce the temptation, particularly to children, to climb onto the parapet. My hon. Friend spoke of his particular concerns for children's safety. In addition, railway bridges have the first 2 m of the outer face sheeted. The intention is again


to remove foot-holds and to prevent people from gaining access along the outer face of the parapet, where they would become a danger to themselves and a hazard to those using the tracks below.
There is a continuing problem of missiles being aimed at traffic from bridges. My hon. Friend referred to incidents in his constituency. However, that remains at a low level and, fortunately, does not seem to be increasing. The seemingly obvious solution to this problem is to increase the height of parapets, and provide full height panelling to obscure the view of approaching traffic, but that does little for a visually pleasing environment and high solid parapets are perceived as ugly and threatening by pedestrians. That solution is, therefore, considered only at sites where there is a history of such problems. I am pleased to say that repeat offences of this nature are rare, but that of itself makes it difficult to target resources.
Increasing the heights of parapets within usually acceptable limits has also failed to provide a complete solution, and we have reports from Railtrack which suggest that problems still exist with parapets 1.8 m high.
On trunk roads the strategy is, therefore, to deter incidents of vandalism by increased police patrols and the use of closed circuit television cameras. For instance, following a number of incidents of vandalism on the M60, we have been co-operating with the Greater Manchester police to review security, including the height of the parapets, on footbridges over the motorway. There is limited use of cameras at the moment, but the situation is kept under continuous review, and there may be potential to increase the application in the future if it proves to be effective. The use of CCTV on local roads is a matter for the local highway authority.
The parapets on the majority of footbridges across the A12 Hackney Wick to M11 link road are similar to the many thousands on bridges across trunk roads in this country. The exceptions are where the bridges cross both the link- road and the London Underground Central line. The design of those footbridges was a requirement of the London Underground authority, and there was consultation with the local authority. Those bridges are of high quality and provide a balance between aesthetics and fitness for purpose. They have clear plastic sides to prevent objects being thrown or dropped on to the Central line and to act as a deterrent to muggers. The drawback to that is that, while people on the bridges are visible to the outside world, people using the bridges may at present be able to look into adjacent properties. To overcome that,

and to increase privacy, opaque panels are being provided at the ends of the bridges with screen planting adjacent to the properties.
In the context of personal safety the Highways Agency is also considering the visual aspects of bridge parapets, including the problem of how to deal with historic bridges, and a report is expected in the autumn of 2000. That will take on board the interests of road users and other organisations in the general appearance of bridges, and will examine the potential conflict that can arise when measures are introduced to deal with aspects of vandalism.

Mr. Cohen: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says, which is important. But she said that the parapet size in my constituency is the same as that of thousands of bridges throughout Britain. Does the national standard take no account of well-populated urban areas?

Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not claiming that his is the only constituency in a well-populated urban area. Well-populated urban areas occur throughout the country.
The Highways Agency has been active, along with other interested parties, in the production of British Standard 6779—"Highway Parapets for Bridges and Other Structures". The contents of that are essentially a restatement of the requirements currently contained in departmental standards, with additions and amendments to reflect the latest research findings. The Highways Agency will be adopting all the parts of this document. The Highways Agency has also contributed to the production of the harmonised European Standard EN 1317, and it is pleasing to note that the document reflects the United Kingdom's requirements.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing the issue to the attention of the House. He has raised the matter through correspondence and the media, and I know that he is motivated by a desire to protect the safety of his constituents. I hope that, given the reasons that I have outlined, he is content that the pedestrians of Leyton and Wanstead are as safe as the thousands of other people in this country who use bridges every day. However, if he has not been satisfied by what I have said this evening, I have little doubt that he will contact me again, and I shall, of course, always listen to what he has to say.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eight o'clock.